April 30, 2009

The Taliban and Pashtun Nationalism

Pakistan is looking more dangerous and precarious by the week. The only Muslim country in the world with an arsenal of nuclear weapons is now threatened by a ferocious and rapidly expanding Taliban insurgency. The most retrograde Islamist army on earth has conquered territory just a few hours’ drive from the capital. Though this discouraging outcome wasn’t inevitable, it was at least likely. As Robert Kaplan pointed out in an insightful essay in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine, “the Taliban constitute merely the latest incarnation of Pashtun nationalism.” And ethnic Pashtuns live on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. “Indeed,” Kaplan adds, “much of the fighting in Afghanistan today occurs in Pashtunistan: southern and eastern Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.”

Take a look at two maps. The first shows the geographic breakdown of Pakistan’s patchwork of ethnicities. You’ll notice that ethnic Pashtuns live in the notoriously backward and violent northwestern frontier provinces. Their region extends deep into Afghanistan and covers the southeastern part of that country. These two regions – which are actually a single region with a somewhat arbitrary national border between them – are where most Taliban activity has been concentrated since the United States destroyed their regime in Afghanistan. A second map shows the breakdown of areas in Pakistan currently under Taliban control. You’ll see, when you compare the maps carefully, that almost all areas that are either Taliban-controlled or Taliban-influenced, are Pashtun.

The Taliban are more than an expression of Pashtun nationalism, of course. They represent a reactionary movement that idealizes the simplicity and extreme conservatism of 7th century Islam. By burnishing this ideology, the Taliban is able, absurdly, to attract support beyond its Pashtun base.

The ethnic component, though, is a formidable one. It all but guaranteed a certain degree of success by the Taliban in all of “Pashtunistan,” in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. Yet all the while, the ethnic map imposes constraints, if not limits, on how far the Taliban can expand.

They were able to seize power in most of Afghanistan before 2001, although the “Northern Alliance” — made up primarily of ethnic Tajiks – managed to hold out until Americans arrived and smashed the regime in Kabul. Since then, the Taliban have had a harder time operating outside “Pashtunistan.” “The north of Afghanistan,” Kaplan writes, “beyond the Hindu Kush, has seen less fighting and is in the midst of reconstruction and the forging of closer links to the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, inhabited by the same ethnic groups that populate northern Afghanistan.”

Interesting article. I would point out the tapestry of Pashtu Pathan tribes and the diversity among Pahshtu.

11 million in Afghanistan
30 million in Pakistan

Looking at the last Afghan public opinion poll is interesting:
A) East Afghan Pashtu are anti Taliban, anti-AQ and anti-Pakistan. East Afghan Pashtu serve in large numbers in the ANA.

B) South Afghan Pashtu are far less anti Taliban, anti AQ, anti Pakistan. 80% of all violence in Afghanistan as per the last ISAF/OEF briefing was in the South.

The war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is in large part a Pashtu civil war. East Afghan Pashtu, and some South Afghan Pashtu are anti Taliban. Many Pashtu east of the Durand line are pro Taliban, as are some South Afghan Pashtu.

In several recent briefings, it is implied that a majority of ANSF and OEF/ISAF casualties are by foreign fighters. This is code for "Punjabi Taliban" and "Pakistani Pashtu," although there are also many Chechans, Dagastanis, Uzbechs and Arabs.

The second largest aspect of the war is that it a Pakistani civil war.

The third largest aspect of the war is that it is an Afghan against Pakistan war.

The 4th biggest aspect is that it is a war by AQ linked networks against the West and the West's allies (the ANSF, Gov of Afghanistan, Russia, China, India, Japan, Turkey, to some degree Iran.)

Posted by: anand at April 30, 2009 5:31 PM

This is a pretty good once-over on the face. But you're missing something really, really important. I wasn't aware of it either until recently, although I was aware of the potential.

In Swat, accounts from those who have fled now make clear that the Taliban seized control by pushing out about four dozen landlords who held the most power.

To do so, the militants organized peasants into armed gangs that became their shock troops, the residents, government officials and analysts said.

The approach allowed the Taliban to offer economic spoils to people frustrated with lax and corrupt government even as the militants imposed a strict form of Islam through terror and intimidation.

“This was a bloody revolution in Swat,” said a senior Pakistani official who oversees Swat, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the Taliban. “I wouldn’t be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan.”

This isn't a complete surprise. The original Afghan Taliban followed a distant cousin of this strategy (and a warped reflection of the Petraeus Gambit, as well). By crushing warlordism, they not only appeared to make the lives of the average male Pashtun more secure from random violence under the warlords, but also random economic predation.

And the ICU movement in Somalia (who we decided to "engage" by attempting to crush the entire country with an indiscriminate Ethiopian hammer and wasn't even hostile to us) did so well on economic reform and little-guy peace and quiet that they got the entire Mogadishu business class behind them. So there's been precedents.

But this is the first I heard of the Paki Taliban hitching their horses explicitly to ending Pakistan's horrific fedualism. The day I read this was the day I went from vague concern to genuine alarm.

Even though Taliban support is, as you point out, not strong among the Punjabis, neither is support for anti-Taliban action. If the Taliban push this enough, in the current economic climate, they might start getting Punjabi support. It all depends on their political savvy.

Anyway, the linkup between wackjob America-hating theocracy and legit, even wildly overdue economic reform causes in Pakistan, is a recipe for exponential growth.

And the result is that this critical piece of your article:

The Taliban are more than an expression of Pashtun nationalism, of course. They represent a reactionary movement that idealizes the simplicity and extreme conservatism of 7th century Islam. By burnishing this ideology, the Taliban is able, absurdly, to attract support beyond its Pashtun base.</i.

is very incomplete. It's not just the theocracy sucking the state away. It's the anti-plutocracy. It worked for Hamas, it worked for Ayatollah Khomeini, and it will work here.

Posted by: glasnost at April 30, 2009 6:37 PM

Interesting analysis, Glasnost.

A year ago I was thinking of going to Pakistan. Now I no longer want to. The place seriously gives me the creeps. I'd rather go back to Iraq, and I intensely dislike Iraq.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 30, 2009 7:12 PM

....Again, this points out the underlying problems created by the British colonial borders drawn not all that long ago in Whitehall. These ethnic groups' sometimes overlapping territorial tentacles had existed centuries before the British were in that Great Game and are not going to go away.
Even in the unlikely event that democracy takes root and thrives, it will lead to the creation of uneasy shifting coalition governments perpetuating unrest.
My vote's for the tight containment of militant Islam in non-contiguous territories. We'll have to enforce this containment alone; if any allies want to help, fine; but we can't depend on that.

Posted by: Morningside at April 30, 2009 7:55 PM

A year ago I was thinking of going to Pakistan. Now I no longer want to. The place seriously gives me the creeps. I'd rather go back to Iraq, and I intensely dislike Iraq.

I'm sorry to hear that for entirely selfish reasons. If I was to suggest that you rethink, here's what I'd say.

A) You could send your career on a rocket and really shape opinion. Because:

1) we have nothing like the media presence there we had in Iraq. We have a serious open-source info deficit and no narrative-style essayists.

2) This is the biggest foreign-policy story in America. Intrinsic merit and public interest.
and people's opinions are unshaped.

3) There's not really an obvious political or partisan divide on what to do. The hands usually over the ears in other contexts are ready to listen.

4) We don't have nearly enough of a clue about street attitudes,except in the most general terms.

5) because of 1-4, something you wrote from the ground could spread like wildfire.

I suppose the problems are the language, the lack of US embeds (at least ones that welcome media presence) and the risk of death. But..nobody ever became the next Anderson Cooper playing it safe...

I'm kidding about suggesting that AC360 is your role model, bien sur.

Posted by: glasnost at April 30, 2009 8:28 PM

You make a good case, Glasnost.

I suppose, instead of being paranoid, I should find out just how dangerous or not Islamabad is. Under no circumstances will I venture into Taliban territory, but Islamabad might be safer even than Beirut or Tel Aviv. Then again, it might not be. I really don't know.

The thing about dangerous countries is they are rarely equally dangerous everywhere. My concern about the country is based partly on a lack of finely-grained up-to-date geographic information.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 30, 2009 8:38 PM

MJT, all you need to do is have plastic surgery to look like a Pakistani. Then just blend in. ;-)

I could probably get away with it. Many Hindus visit Pakistan safely . . . but then most Pakistanis just assume they are fellow Pakistanis.

Whatever you do, don't shout out load that you are Jewish. LOL!

More seriously, have you considered going to Pakistan as an embedded reporter in the Pakistani Army? They just might oblige you.

If you go to Afghanistan, consider embedding with the ANSF and their MiTTs/OMLTs. Bill Roggio embedded with the ANA and their Canadian OMLTs.

Posted by: anand at April 30, 2009 10:57 PM

Anand: have you considered going to Pakistan as an embedded reporter in the Pakistani Army? They just might oblige you.

That's an interesting idea. I don't know enough about the Pakistani military to know if it's a good idea, but it's interesting.

Whatever you do, don't shout out load that you are Jewish. LOL!

I'm not Jewish, by the way, just in case you thought I was.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at April 30, 2009 11:01 PM

Pakistan is not the safest country to visit, especially for an American journalist. Remember Daniel Pearl?

Posted by: lebanonfirst at May 1, 2009 2:23 AM

Pakistan is not the safest country to visit, especially for an American journalist. Remember Daniel Pearl?

I would in no way swear to the safety of Pakistan, but I'm not aware of a follow-up to DP. There are Western reporters in Pakistan today for major media publications. It's not a zone of certain death - I'm fairly sure of that - at least in the non-pushtun areas.

Under no circumstances will I venture into Taliban territory, but Islamabad might be safer even than Beirut or Tel Aviv. Then again, it might not be. I really don't know.

Don't take my word for it. I would ask your fellow journalists.

Posted by: glasnost at May 1, 2009 6:36 AM

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 05/01/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.

2) This is the biggest foreign-policy story in America. Intrinsic merit and public interest.
and people's opinions are unshaped.

I don't think that is true. Most Americans I know think it's an intractable problem that has nothing to do with the US and that we should extricate ourselves from ASAP. I don't necessarily subscribe to that point of view, myself, but i certainly don't think the US has a moral obligation to try to do something about it, even if there's nothing we can realistically do. I did feel that the US had a moral obligation to try to pull Iraq back from the brink.

3) There's not really an obvious political or partisan divide on what to do.

Nor is there any kind of consensus about "what to do", or even a consensus of opinion about whether there is anything that CAN be done. So, partisanship is largely irrelevant. There's nothing to be partisan about, yet :)

The hands usually over the ears in other contexts are ready to listen

That may change. And it may be that it will be the right that sticks its head in the sand, this time. Or do you expect the American right to be less partisan than the American left? less mean spirited? Less small minded? lol.

It doesn't really matter on this one, though. US public opinion is not going to have an impact on this problem one way or another, because none of the major players give a damn about US public opinion, or (public) American support. In fact, American support for any of the factions would likely do more harm than good.

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 1, 2009 9:36 AM

MJT, here are some issues you might want to consider when thinking about embedding in the Pakistani army.

1) It would probably be pretty safe embedding with a Pakistani Army Corps or Division HQs. I haven't heard about one of these being over run.

2) Would it be safe to embed with a Brigade HQs? You might consider this. Many of the officers in a Brigade HQs would speak english pretty well. They would be able to protect you as well. You would also be based in a forward Tactical Operations Center (TOC) and could figure out a fair bit about what is happening in the front lines. Too bad you don't know some broken Urdu; since the TOC would almost certainly communicate with its front line battalions and companies in Urdu most of the time.

3) It might not be as safe embedding at the company or battalion level.

If I were you, I would consider embedding jointly with a good Pakistani journalist. He could brief you every now and then regarding what is being communicated in Urdu and about cultural issues. He could also watch your back.

Posted by: anand at May 1, 2009 12:02 PM

Michael,

This is somehat off-topic, but I still think an important general question -- maybe a fundamental question. I recently reread Ghaith Abdul-Ahad's 2004 article written after attending the Glastonbury festival in England.

You see, my whole experience of festivals comes from two places: one is the mass spontaneous festivals we used to have in Iraq in the "good old days" of Saddam Hussein, celebrating everything from the anniversary of our victory over the Americans and their allies in the 1991 war to the grand celebrations of his eminence the necessity-leader's birthday. The best one of this kind was actually staged to commemorate the 100% yes vote Saddam got in a referendum on his presidency, which is kind of like having Glastonbury to celebrate the Hutton report.

The other festivals I have enjoyed back home are the Shia Ashura, and Arbaeen, where Shia Muslims commemorate the death of Imam Hussein 14 centuries ago, by chanting, flagellating and dancing with swords swinging over their heads in processions that re-enact the eternal tragedy of the imam's martyrdom. So if you are impressed by Glastonbury, imagine more than a million people crammed into the alleys of one small town.

It may surprise you to know that if there is one thing the Iraqi festivals miss, it's the true sense of having fun - of enjoying ourselves in ways other than flagellation. All festivals in Iraq are about one of two things: either the worship of the imam or the worship of the leader.

In summary, I think that most of the problems we have in my fucked-up country and in my fucked-up part of the world (the Middle East) come from the fact that we are a bunch of sexually frustrated wackos living in something that could easily be described as a shithole with no hope and no future.

And it made wonder if the gap between the Middle East and the West is just too huge to bridge. I imagine you have been thinking of this while you've been writing up your recent pieces on Iraq. Any thoughts?

*

Posted by: Jeffrey at May 2, 2009 9:44 AM

"I'm not Jewish, by the way, just in case you thought I was."

That is a classic marker of antisemitism, to think that someone is Jewish when they are not. Even if the context is not necessarily unfavorable, it is reflective of the antisemitic personality disorder - a neurotic or psychotic obsession with Jews and the "Protocols of Elders" belief that they are everywhere, controlling everything. This is especially relevant to a thread like this one where there was no other pertinent reference to Jews.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 2, 2009 3:20 PM

Michael,

A few points you or a colleague might want to elaborate on sometime:
one of yours: "ethnic boundaries are like walls"

and a couple of observations Michael Yon mentioned today ("Mysterious Places"):
"The Afghans live around water" and "(they) prefer to fight away from their homes."

Posted by: Paul S. at May 2, 2009 4:34 PM

Gary, you might not realize that anti Jewish bigotry is a big challenge in Pakistan, even though almost no Pakistanis have met an "actual" Jews. For some reason many believe that Jews are worse than Christians or other foreigners. This is what I was alluding to. I knew MJT wasn't Jewish.

A large percentage of Pakistanis believe that the "Jews" did 9/11. One question that I don't know the answer to is why do so many hate the Jews so much? I know it isn't because of Palestine; because the vast majority of bigots know almost nothing about Palestinians and don't care about them either. So where does this hate come from? Part of it came from Hitler . . . who was much more popular around the world than we like to admit. But that still does not explain it. Another common explanation is that Jews are accused of being Christ killers. To me none of these explanations seem adequate to understand the size of anti Jewish hatred.

Posted by: anand at May 2, 2009 5:34 PM

Gary, it's obvious to me that Anand isn't a Jew-hater. It's time to lay off him.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 2, 2009 5:46 PM

I second Michael's comment, Gary. As naively idealistic as anand strikes me as being sometimes, I've never suspected that he comes by way of a negative, and certainly not a hateful agenda's filter.

Posted by: Paul S. at May 2, 2009 9:02 PM

Hi Michael,

I was reading through your article and I completely agree with you about Pakistan. Last month, I visited Northern Mexico--Tijuana, and I believe Iraq might be safer than that place as well, although I haven't had the chance to visit yet.

I am an aspiring free-lance journalist myself and I must say a lot of your work inspires me.

The most convenient scapegoats are at the greatest distance---intellectually as well as geographically. Hearing what conservatives, otherwise known as right wing extremists, are all about where I live makes it hard to keep a straight face. I was warned, for example, what a trip to New Zealand would hold, now that John Key and the National Party had won a recent national election.

Posted by: Paul S. at May 2, 2009 9:33 PM

It is not at all obvious to me that anand is not a Jew-hater. I stand by every word I posted here, and further note his "LOL" at the thought of Muslim fanatics murdering Jews. Yeah, sure, if Danny Pearl's father read this thread he'd be laughing his head off.

After I caught him, anand came back with his usual cover - the smarmy, phony "thoughtful" post designed to persuade everyone what a fair-minded tolerant guy he is. But when he thought no one who cared was looking, he revealed his true self. It's like many years ago when I saw a television interview with ex-President Carter. At that time I knew he wasn't sympathetic to Israel but I still had respect for him, lulled by the same kind of smarm that anand routinely churns out. But in this interview Carter went off on an unhinged rant about Jews, sarcastically calling them the "Chosen People", his voice and expression dripping with venom and contempt. He let the mask down and I have despised him ever since.

I am often accused of slinging the accusation of "antisemitism" too freely. Maybe I do sometimes. But usually, as with Carter and anand, the mask drops sooner or later.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 3, 2009 1:21 AM

"Gary, you might not realize that anti Jewish bigotry is a big challenge in Pakistan"

Antisemitism in a Muslim country? I never would have dreamed it! After all, they're not "apartheid" like Jewish Israel, right, anand?

"I knew MJT wasn't Jewish."

I knew you would say that.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 3, 2009 1:24 AM

Jeez, I almost forgot - Pakistan is where Danny Pearl's head was gleefully sliced off because he was Jewish, and anand has the nerve to say I might not realize anti-Jewish bigotry is a "challenge" there. He's not only antisemitic, he's a condescending little bugger, too.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 3, 2009 1:29 AM

Gary, it's obvious to me that Anand isn't a Jew-hater. It's time to lay off him

Jeez, I almost forgot - Pakistan is where Danny Pearl's head was gleefully sliced off because he was Jewish, and anand has the nerve to say I might not realize anti-Jewish bigotry is a "challenge" there. He's not only antisemitic, he's a condescending little bugger, too.

How many more times are you going to completely fail to get the hint? You looked like you were about to get it there for a minute - that thing about Carter was almost an entrance to discussion - but you blew it again. It offends me to see Anand repeatedly talk to you civilly and you continuing to act like a di*k, and I'm going to pick as many fights about it as possible. Either it will encourage you to change your behavior, or maybe to double down until Mike's very generous patience (with your type of crazy, specifically, and only your time, to my muttered acceptance) is exhausted. Either one is good. And the fact that anand has stuck to "condescension" against you is a mark of his admirable character. Although I think the evidence suggests that being nicer to you than I would be (and am) has gotten him exactly nothing, so maybe he'll finally start telling you to go squat on a telephone pole.

Posted by: glasnost at May 3, 2009 8:21 AM

Gary,

I think you are overreacting. And even if you are not it does not matter.

Posted by: leo at May 3, 2009 9:16 AM

There is a sharp difference in viewing Israelis or Jews in India and Pakistan. Anands comment was factual, useful. In other comments he might be biased/leftist towards Israel, but you can easily find Jews or Israelis thinking like him.

"Their mask falling".

I agree that in case of Jimmy Carter it is a serious matter. Really disgusting.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 3, 2009 9:16 AM

I read only once in ten years that Pakistan intended to absorb Afghanistan in the past (eighties?). Given the artificial split (Pashtuns) and the urge for expansion hindered at the Indian border, it sounds logical.

It would be a real irony, if Afghans decided to do the same to the Punjabis in the fertile lands of "five rivers".

It is the propre way for invaders to go, not the other way. From the mountains or steppes/deserts.

With little confusion and weak policy in near future one can define Pakistan as the soft underbelly of Afghanistan.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 3, 2009 9:26 AM

Hi Czechmade! How have you been? You don't visit at IraqiMojo.blogspot.com anymore.

Is Carter anti Jewish? He didn't behave that way as President, so why would he be anti Jewish now? Perhaps Carter could phrase his concern about Israel as:

"As a long time friend and admirer of the great state of Israel, its culture, values and achievements; it pains me greatly to see that Israel is not living up to its intrinsic goodness, values and potential. I know that Israel is much better than that. Israel dishonors and harms herself by mistreating Palestinians. As a friend and well wisher of Israel; I will do all that I can to facilitate the Israelis doing right by the Palestinians; and therefore right by themselves."

This approach would be more likely to encourage Israelis to treat their Palestinian siblings better.

Posted by: anand at May 3, 2009 10:34 AM

To anticipate more we should know how many (%) Punjabis hold high positions in military and police outside Punjab or in the central command. If it is predominantly Punjabi, the others want to revert it, esp. with the historical memory of the Pashtuns ruling over Punjabis. Islamizing Punjab.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 3, 2009 10:51 AM

Anand, I visit sometimes but do not comment.

Jimmy Carter should spend rest of his life apologizing to the Persians and never touch another nation.

Whole world would love to see the Swedish police style of conflict management there, but we would probably not find one Israeli thereafter in the region. Why don´t we shift out attention to the Copts in Egypt for ex., next door? I think the Arab occupation should stop there and those "Arabs" might go back home - to Arabia. I want to hear Coptic again in the streets of Cairo. It can be revived the same way like Hebrew. Now it is like Germans living in Russia - very sad.

Coptic is like Hebrew - few thousands years of tradition behind.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 3, 2009 2:30 PM

Anand, you just cannot stay away from your pro-Pal rants can you? No matter the topic or discussion you always, ALWAYS veer back to the poor Pals and how people, anyone and everyone, though especially Israel, should help them.

Too bad that the Pals have not lived up to their "intrinsic goodness, values and potential". As you take pains to point out, it is not the Pals fault, it is always someone elses fault. Poor Pals- good thing they have you as their advocate.

Posted by: Ron Snyder at May 3, 2009 2:38 PM

I've been following the back-and-forth between Gary and Anand. By way of background, I'm an American Jew whose grandfather was born in Jaffa and whose great-grandfather is buried in the old Jewish cemetery in Jaffa. I have relatives in Israel up the yin-yang, and I also have family members who were still living in Cairo at the outbreak of the Six-Day War in 1967 and who were subsequently "cleansed" from the country. While not Orthodox, I am affiliated with a Reform/Conservative congregation in San Francisco. Having said all that, I have to say I side with Michael and others who claim that Gary is over-reacting to Anand. I don't agree with everything Anand says (that's putting it gently), but if his position is anything like the quote he proposes that Jimmy Carter say, Anand is somebody I could at least have a dialogue with, even if we agree to disagree.
(Below is Anand's proposed quote which, if Carter ever said it, I could have respect for Carter):
"As a long time friend and admirer of the great state of Israel, its culture, values and achievements; it pains me greatly to see that Israel is not living up to its intrinsic goodness, values and potential. I know that Israel is much better than that. Israel dishonors and harms herself by mistreating Palestinians. As a friend and well wisher of Israel; I will do all that I can to facilitate the Israelis doing right by the Palestinians; and therefore right by themselves."
Finally, I agree with Czechmade also that scant attention is paid to the plight of the indigenous Coptic people of Egypt who have been marginalized for centuries and remain second-class citizens to this day.
Best wishes to all,
Harold

The Palestinians have fake identity and they are forced to discuss it every day. The Egyptians on the other hand have a natural identity and they are not allowed to discuss it even at night. Typical for an occupied country. Both are deeply sick independently of Israel. There is no improvement in sight. Something is deeply rotten: They have been forced to play in a nightmarish movie directed from abroad.

The Egyptians just like Syrians have to display their Arabness even in their official name of state. Is it not redundant, if they are really Arabs? Like German DEMOCRATIC Republic. With obviously zero democracy.

Do we need to put Germanic Rep. of Austria? Or Slavic Czech Rep.? It would be like a war declaration to our neighbours - stressing our fake megalomanic identity. Those nations around Israel should feel happy to learn from them how to maintain their original identity - a model for others.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 3, 2009 3:24 PM

Jimmy Carter should spend rest of his life apologizing to the Persians and never touch another nation.

To the Persians? For what? If we push Egypt to reform and it revolutions instead, does that make it our fault, or does it mean that Egypt is a time bomb built by their own government, and will be a rotting corpse until the day it explodes? Shall we therefore all be cheering Hosni Mubarak for keeping the lid on?

If you hang around in the Brezhnev era of the political circle of life for too long, the cure to the disease will probably kill you. Our chance to save Egypt is before things begin to get seriously unstable - a long time before, far enough away to make the fix survivable, or the power transfer orderly. Our chance not to have the 1976 President not lost Iran was in in the 60's.

If you want to blame the Iranian Revolution on someone, start with the Shah, and go down the next 1000 slots on his men and the opposition. Then List every US president and the top exec branch FP guys between JF Dulles era and Carter. Then Sayid Qutb, the USSR, Saddamn Hussein, the Kurds... etc, etc, etc. Carter's at the back of the line. Like Mikhail Gorbachev, he was the best influence anyone ever had on that system, just a decade too late. He couldn't make the Pahlavis competent or humane, but that would have taken Vietnam II.. and probably also not worked.

And it was the people of Iran, not JC, who turned Khoemeini into the Fifth Beatle. With an assist from the Shah.

Posted by: glasnost at May 3, 2009 4:28 PM

Czechmade, please do leave a comment at IraqiMojo.blogspot.com once in a while ;-)

Glasnost, Carter did organize a coup against the Shah. He didn't understand what he was doing. I think that Carter and Ike should have stayed out of it in 1979 and 1953.

Posted by: anand at May 3, 2009 4:48 PM

So where does this hate come from?

Ever read the Bible? Jews are God's chosen people. So who would have a reason to hate them? Hint: Satan. duh In case you wish to dismiss me as a "Bible Thumper", do some research on the recent archealogical findings of chariots & bones in the Red Sea.

Just sayin'....

Posted by: DagneyT at May 3, 2009 5:36 PM

anand,

"Carter did organize a coup against the Shah."

I do not believe it is accurate.
I agree that US had its hand in removing Mossadek (sorry if spell is incorrect) but hardly a Shah. If only via indifference. And of cause, it looks like Homeini was able to fool everybody.

Posted by: leo at May 3, 2009 8:06 PM

If you hang around in the Brezhnev era of the political circle of life for too long, the cure to the disease will probably kill you. Our chance to save Egypt is before things begin to get seriously unstable - a long time before, far enough away to make the fix survivable, or the power transfer orderly. Our chance not to have the 1976 President not lost Iran was in in the 60's.

And where did you pull that from, glasnost? Not from any history books, obviously. Just making a keen but untested theoretical observation and presenting it as baseline truth?

If you want to blame the Iranian Revolution on someone, start with the Shah, and go down the next 1000 slots on his men and the opposition.

And was the Shah worse than any a couple dozen other dictators that are in power right now? Was he worse than Saddam Hussein? Was he worse than Assad senior, in Syria? Was he worse than the Saudis? Was he worse than Fidel Castro? Worse than Ho Chi Minh? Was he worse than the communist leadership of the USSR? It seems a bit foolish to blame the Shah for being the Shah, while not blaming his allies for withdrawing their support and empowering his opponents.

Our chance to save Egypt is before things begin to get seriously unstable - a long time before, far enough away to make the fix survivable, or the power transfer orderly.

Right. Which means, it had to happen while Sadat was still alive. Oh well. Sucks to be Egypt, eh?

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 3, 2009 11:22 PM

PS to glasnost: Do you think that the fact revolutionaries succeeded in Iran is evidence that the Shah was not quite the tyrant he has been made out to be? Or are Iranians a fundamentally different sort than the rest of humanity? Because off the top of my head I can't think of any other cases in modern history that a despot has been violently overthrown by the people he was oppressing, without substantial outside help. Liquidating the opposition before it can take root seems to be in the "Tyranny 101" manual, and yet the Shah didn't do it.

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 3, 2009 11:43 PM

Glasnost,

piano, piano.

I blame all the "actors". But since Carter reared his ugly head in Israel I want to remind him of his fundamental failure and to advice him strongly not to try to wreck another region. Which he knows nothing about.

We have dictators (on very different levels!) but also goodies who are perfectly free to wreck anything, simply because they play their media goodies role well and rarely take a risk to oppose some evil.

These goodies are complementary to the dictators.
They thrive together. The dictators may fail from time to time, but these despicable professional corrupt and ignorant goodies flourish for ever.

Goodies should never think that their ignorance, weakness, cowardliness, big innocent media smiles or inaction absolves them from responsability.

It was somehow easy to blame Shah for human rights abuses (who did he torture? marxists, jihadis? good for them, it is written in their book) and now it is suddenly difficult to do the same with the mullahs - who did execute more people in one week than Shah could do in his entire life?

Who knows that Iranians are more pro-Western and even Western in their mindset than anybody else between Greece and India? Instead of aknowledging that we make commercial contracts with the mullahs. Appeasement. We try to prove to them that we are not that serious about our being the West. We are uncles and aunts after all and our enemies in ME are much more sexy than anybody else. It looks like a big deal talking to them.

I think the Jimmy Carter concept is very much alive. A study case. Being sooo good one can make money too.

Imagine the marxists eagre about having their "revolution" executed or exiled afterwards. Imagine splittered non-violent parties and some ayatollahs, mullahs not willing to convert their ideology into full political power (unknown until Khomeini came)- removed, imagine the fake ayatollah Khomeini, (who became suddenly "ayatollah" to avoid his execution in early sixties) and you get a political vacuum suddenly filled with a marginal totalitarian power - in a blitzkrieg.

A classical case of something no one wanted or expected. Marxists did the job of useful idiots and have now as their memorial for their loss of power the highly unislamic term "revolution" incorporated in the current political structures plus 51% national resources in the hands of mullahs.

And imagine this whole mongrel project was applauded by the Western left or others in the beginning.
Let us dig out some article from that time. Maybe we find quotes somewhat identic with the quote from Anand full of admiration for the ancient (Israeli) Iranian history, culture, achievements...

Who else was courting the new power? Visually we have something the Iranians did to themselves. Is it not about the time to remove this myth? More facts?

A theory of power vacuum? Suicidal plurality of "ideas" made overnight invalid?

Posted by: Czechmade at May 4, 2009 8:00 AM

Craig,

exactly - withdrawing suddenly one´s support (political, economic), one can trigger a collapse of power anywhere. And Carter was more than willing to do that in Iran hastily. And with all the colourful revolutions around one knows how to amplify the revolutionary effects.

I wonder whether such a support was available and vanished suddenly in Yugoslavia for ex., knowing well this state was no more a vital need - one way investition as a bulwark against USSR.

Iran does not compare with Egypt. It is central on its own. Egypt compares with Turkey and Pakistan. The choice is more military or more islam. On the whole marginal powers competing desperately with "real Arabs" to be "real muslims". The Pakistanis are "just converts". Inferior. Also Egyptians are quite inferior on the inner scale of underSaid islamic pyramid.
Turkey I do not know, where they place them. They were hated for centuries by Arabs. But now? With their new role?

Glasnost gropes in the dark. The Shah does not compare to Mubarak. There is no way to save Egypt. Maybe Copts - by taking them away like non-muslim Iraqis. Egypt was somewhat Western by nature in fifties. Those people are gone - expelled, only Copts are kept like underdog hostages. Iran was at the peak of modernity under Shah and is that even much more right now in spite of the mullah visualization. We are utterly stupid - unable to play with this phenomenon. We are morons non-plus-ultra.

Until recently the Copts and others were in position to bring Egypt somewhere. They lost their numbers and influence. They lost their language. The Persians kept their language and identity - every Persian is a happy two-in-one perfectly guarding his Persian linguistic heritage comparable in power to the Greek and with an open window into the Arabic vocabulary.

Go through a Persian dictionary. You are in Europe lingustically. Compounds a la Greca! A nice trip to something European and protoEuropean at the same time.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 4, 2009 9:08 AM

"That is a classic marker of antisemitism, to think that someone is Jewish when they are not."

Really? I never saw it that way.

And I have had people on the street here in Dublin ask me if (or simply assume that) I was Jewish.

How is that antisemitism?

Posted by: Leauki at May 5, 2009 7:41 AM

Leauki,

If I may interject.

To think that someone is Jewish, when they are not, is a marker, although certainly not 100% correlated, for antisemitism.

It suggests a certain obsession, which obsession is one of the components of antisemitism.

Markers are suggestive, although not completely definitive.

In my experience, GR is correct.

Posted by: del at May 5, 2009 11:57 AM

Del, that's generally correct. And to make baseless assumptions (or accusations in some cases) that somebody is Jewish is usually an indicator that the person making the assumptions thinks there is something wrong with that. I've been called "Jew" on Arab blogs several times, just because somebody didn't like what I was saying. I'm pretty sure they didn't mean it as a compliment :)

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 5, 2009 12:06 PM

exactly - withdrawing suddenly one´s support (political, economic), one can trigger a collapse of power anywhere. And Carter was more than willing to do that in Iran hastily.

This is completely factually false. Read some history and learn something from it. We in no way "withdrew" our support. Everything we said in public was that we back the Shah. We never talked with the opposition. Our "withdrawal" of support consisted of pushing political reforms overdue by decades, not liking violent, bloody repression that is exactly like the Egyptian system today, and some internal administrative debate about the viability of the Shah's government - perceptive and accurate debate that was sadly never acted upon.

Glasnost, Carter did organize a coup against the Shah.

This is not only false but absurd. Show some evidence, documentation, or at least start talking about some specific actions. Some logic, some motivation, something? Who were we working with, may I ask? Were we so instrumental in masterminding events that we brought Khoemeini back so he could inspire people to take our embassy hostage?

PS to glasnost: Do you think that the fact revolutionaries succeeded in Iran is evidence that the Shah was not quite the tyrant he has been made out to be?

"18 Federation of American Scientists (FAS) also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963-79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails." [19] According to a former CIA analyst on Iran,20[21] Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was trained in torture techniques by the CIA. According to Leaf, after the 1979 revolution, a CIA film was found which had been made for SAVAK security forces on how to torture women

According to Iranian political historian Ervand Abrahamian, after this attack SAVAK interrogators were sent abroad for "scientific training to prevent unwanted deaths from 'brute force.' Brute force was supplemented with the bastinado; sleep deprivation; extensive solitary confinement; glaring searchlights; standing in one place for hours on end; nail extractions; snakes (favored for use with women); electrical shocks with cattle prods, often into the rectum; cigarette burns; sitting on hot grills; acid dripped into nostrils; near-drownings; mock executions; and an electric chair with a large metal mask to muffle screams while amplifying them for the victim. This latter contraption was dubbed the Apollo—an allusion to the American space capsules. Prisoners were also humiliated by being raped, urinated on, and forced to stand naked.11 Despite the new 'scientific' methods, the torture of choice remained the traditional bastinado" used to beat soles of the feet. The "primary goal" of those using the bastinados "was to locate arms caches, safe houses and accomplices ...

And that's just SAVAK. For Christ's sake, read a history of the Iranian Revolution.

The security services fought very violently against a protest movement that kept getting larger. They killed thousands of people over two years - and that's not including the separatists. Iran's modern human rights record in the 90's and 00's is terrible. It flat-out sucks. But it's an improvement on the Shah in the 70's, from what I can see.

Bonus: If a peaceful revolution overthrows the current system in Iran, will you conclude that they therefore were not tyrants? From where have you developed your apparent thesis that "tyrants" cannot be overthrown nonviolently?

Are you, perhaps, "Just making a keen but untested theoretical observation and presenting it as baseline truth?"

(By the way, to answer, what do you mean by "test?") And what, exactly, did I supposedly not find in a history book? That introducing reforms at a time of severe instability, following tyrannical repression in a weakening government, is less effective at quieting revolution than introducing reform when the government is strong and opposition is less active? I find it hard to believe that you actually disagree with that statement.

Posted by: glasnost at May 5, 2009 1:55 PM

The act itself of asking someone whether or not they are Jewish is neither here nor there: it all depends on the motive and tone of the one doing the asking. I have been asked on several occasions whether or not I'm Jewish (I am) but it was with the intent of asking me a perfectly innocent question about Judaism or the Jewish people (out of curiosity) or referring me to a book or movie that the asker thought might interest me. I have a very good friend who is Italian-American and an extremely devout Catholic who has been asked many times if he is Jewish and he takes it as a compliment! He has a very positive view of Judaism. I imagine this is the kind of case that Leauki was talking about. On the other hand, the case that Craig refers to (being called a "Jew" on Arab websites) is likely a hateful and neurotic obsession.

Posted by: Harold at May 5, 2009 3:18 PM

Harold, in this case the person is someone who is obsessed with demonizing Israel, to the extent of telling fantastical lies like "Israel forced Arafat on the Palestinians" and "Palestinians did not join the Arab war against Israel in 1948". So it is eminently reasonable to surmise that if he has an animus against the Jewish state he may also have an animus against Jews.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 6, 2009 12:11 AM

Here in Czech Rep. I do not have to ask, people tell it to me themselves. We are often mixed anyhow, so it is no surprize if you find Israeli-Czech border in your own body (between liver/stomach?). My parents names might be both Jewish and Czech, but they are not typically Jewish I think. You can have a typical Jewish name and have nothing Jewish in your family.

A Czech-Czech can be easily more pro-Israeli than a Czech-Jew. Under such conditions it is difficult to build up some tension or even curiosity.

We are detached from organized religions. I can easily develop a curiosity for a Czech Catholic or Protestant as well. Our Catholics are jokes in the eyes of the surrounding 4 nations...

We have similar sense of humour and artistic tendencies, it seems the "Jews" like us. It can be fun. OK our words for fun are different, more pointed.

We might start some Czech-Jewish Department for higher fun/humour studies and confuse our enemies. Those endless debates about antisemitism/semitism can be really boring...

Posted by: Czechmade at May 6, 2009 5:36 AM

Gary,
The Jewish people have the same right to a homeland and the same right of self-determination as other peoples. Anyone who demonizes Israel's existence as a Jewish state while never questioning the legitimacy of 22 Arab states, 57 Muslim states, and countless others is a bigot, no doubt about it. I agree with you completely on that point.
Harold

(By the way, to answer, what do you mean by "test?") And what, exactly, did I supposedly not find in a history book? That introducing reforms at a time of severe instability, following tyrannical repression in a weakening government, is less effective at quieting revolution than introducing reform when the government is strong and opposition is less active? I find it hard to believe that you actually disagree with that statement.

Glasnost, that isn't what you claimed. This is what you claimed:

If you hang around in the Brezhnev era of the political circle of life for too long, the cure to the disease will probably kill you. Our chance to save Egypt is before things begin to get seriously unstable - a long time before, far enough away to make the fix survivable, or the power transfer orderly. Our chance not to have the 1976 President not lost Iran was in in the 60's.

Don't play that game of retroactively revising your comments rather than correcting your mistakes, with me.

You aren't talking about "reform" there. You are talking about intervention:

Our chance to save Egypt...

That is foreign intervention. Don't mince words about it and label it reform - what is that, reform at gunpoint? So now that we've established you actually are talking about foreign intervention, I want to know where your theory that interventions during a political crisis/power vacuum/whatever fail, and that interventions during periods of calm succeed. Both types of intervention have about the same track record for success and failure, as far as I can tell from my reading of history. What version of history do you read from?

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 6, 2009 8:36 AM

Harold, I agree with you 100%. The Jewish people do have a right to a homeland. Only not on someone else's land. The Gypsies have a right to a homeland, too. They are a kind of similar oppressed diasporic population. They are originally from Northwestern India. Maybe they should do back there and declare themselves a state and call the people trying to get their land back terrorists. Hey, India has alooot of room. Why can't the people living on the small part of India that the Gypsies take go live there?

Posted by: molly at May 6, 2009 8:49 AM

Molly,
You and I both agree the Jewish people have the right to a homeland. Tell me your solution.
Harold

Glasnost can be a funny oracle sometimes. What the oracle says is true but surprizingly in a very different context.

Probably he wanted to say: "If you hang around in the Mubarak era of the political circle of life for too long, the cure to the disease will probably kill you." He lives in Cairo and has to do some cosmetic changes to his ideas to avoid the Egyptian police. I can follow that. In Russia he would have done the same under Brezhniev. For ex. after Russian invasion in Afghanistan, he would have sung songs about "the American soldier". Most people could follow what he really meant.

I like this prophecy, it means we can do absolutely nothing for Egypt. Clairvoyance undiluted.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 6, 2009 10:59 AM

Harold (my grandfather's name, by the way). It would have been great if there had been some free land when Jews were looking for a state. But there wasn't any, and they took land that already had natives. What to do now? Well, the only ethical thing would be to allow those dispossessed to come back, make the law of return not applicable to only one religion. Sorry, I think it's sick that I, whose ancestors have not lived in the Middle East for about 2,00o years get free citizenship while my friend Ahmad, whose grandparents were born in the Galillee does not. Many have written on the One secular state for all solution. The first one to come to mind is Ali Abunimah:

Harold (my grandfather's name, by the way). It would have been great if there had been some free land when Jews were looking for a state. But there wasn't any, and they took land that already had natives. What to do now? Well, the only ethical thing would be to allow those dispossessed to come back, make the law of return not applicable to only one religion. Sorry, I think it's sick that I, whose ancestors have not lived in the Middle East for about 2,00o years get free citizenship while my friend Ahmad, whose grandparents were born in the Galillee does not. Many have written on the One secular state for all solution. The first one to come to mind is Ali Abunimah:

It is clear to anyone with intelligence and incomplete naivete that the one-state solution always means the subjugation of the Jews under the control of the Arabs. Such a state would unavoidably be a muslim state.

Anyone reading this should read the hamas charter and consider that they mean what they wrote and that large portions of it are quotations from the immutable texts of islam. Then ask oneself: Is molly's claim of a secular one-state honest and sane?

Further, if one subscribes to the idea of self-determination, why is it that the Jews are NOT allowed self-determination (see my 1st paragraph), whereas other groups are?

Posted by: del at May 6, 2009 8:53 PM

molly, you're still double-posting. Better find someone who actually knows how to use a computer to help you out. Here's a friendly little piece of advice - you're probably not going to find that help among your drooling nitwit Jew-baiting buddies.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 7, 2009 12:29 AM

Molly,

I wonder why don´t you help the original population of Thai-wan to get rid of the Chinese who settled there after their defeat in mainland China in 1948. They might easily go to their homeland.

It makes no sense to me. Your thesis is focused on one land only. You seem to be dazzled by the media power.

Also sending Gypsies to India is a sort of romantic mentoring. I have never met a Gypsy dreaming of a new specific homeland. Maybe wait and listen what they want or wish. It reminds me of Karl Marx mentoring the workers from a safe distance.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 7, 2009 3:31 AM

I would prefer that Molly just keep doing her blog, not go on other blogs, and if anyone chooses to read/listen to her drivel we can go to her blog.

If you are good enough the pull-through marketing concept should work.

No offense Molly, I just think that you are an agenda driven idiot and that facts don't matter unless they fit your agenda.

(sorry for not double posting)

Ron

Posted by: Ron Snyder at May 7, 2009 5:00 AM

Molly,
The one-state solution is an idea that's been much discussed. Ironically, the one-state solution was first proposed by left-wing Zionists in the 1920s. A number of Arabs endorsed the idea as well, but after they were assassinated by other Arabs, the Jews thought it best not to pursue that further. This is obviously no longer the 1920s, so how a SECULAR one-state solution would work is uncharted territory. However, the decision to go with a single state should be something agreed upon by BOTH parties. Since we all seem to agree that both Jews and Palestinians have the same right of self-determination, then both parties would have to enter voluntarily into the agreement. And by the way, I can't speak for your family, but mine has been living in the land of Israel for well over a century, since before the first Zionist wave of immigration, and that's true for many Jewish Israelis as well. Ahmed is not the only one with grandparents from there.
Harold

The average salary of Israeli Arab workers in 2007 was only 67% of that of oriental Jews and 52% of that of Ashkenazi Jews.

The average per capita income of Israeli Arabs was $7,700 dollars, compared with $19,000 for Israel as a whole.

In 2007, 51.4% of Palestinian families lived beneath the poverty line, compared with 19.9% of all families.

Less than 6% of state employees were Arab.

Only 18% of Arab Israeli women were employed, compared with 56% of Jewish women (and 59% of Arab men).

Since the founding of Israel in 1948, there has been no new Arab municipality, as against 600 new Jewish municipalities.

Palestinian citizens of Israel own only 3.5% of the land.

Arab municipalities received less that 5% of development budget funds and 3% of normal government funding, although Israeli Palestinians form 20% of the population.
(Le Monde Diplomatique)

I know that we Americans shouldn't be talking with our history with black Americans. But Israel could do a better job treating its Palestinian minority. If it did, this might go a long way to improving Israel's relationship with the West Bank and Gaza.

Posted by: anand at May 7, 2009 11:40 AM

I had a question here. Many Lebanese insist that their country is occupied and that the Shi'ba farms belong to Lebanon (and not to the Syrian Golan Heights.) Is this true.

Did Kofi Annan and the UN declare that the Shi'ba farms were not Lebanese territory? What was the UN's judgement on the status of Shi'ba farms?

Posted by: anand at May 7, 2009 11:43 AM

Ron, name one fact that I have mentioned that doesn't mesh with my agenda (which is peace and justice). The fact that you are resorting to insults says a lot about your argument and character. Harold, thank you for replying seriously and not resorting to insults. Believe it or not, I care about both populations and want them to each live with peace and justice. Answer more later, I'm still sleepy. By the way, my family all live in Brooklyn (though I want to get the hell out!)

Posted by: molly at May 7, 2009 12:17 PM

Anand, whatever do you mean by Americans shouldn't be talking about our history with Black Americans?

Posted by: molly at May 7, 2009 12:45 PM

Anand, whatever do you mean by Americans shouldn't be talking about our history with Black Americans?

Posted by: molly at May 7, 2009 12:45 PM

Molly, Israelis and others sometimes mention that we Americans have mistreated our fellow black Americans when we criticize them for how they treat their minorities (I have heard this many times.) I am acknowledging that their critique has some merit; but suggesting that Israel treats its fellow Palestinian Israeli citizens even worse than we Americans treat black Americans. Israel has to do better. Israel is better than its actions.

Molly, you might like moving to California! ;-)

Posted by: anand at May 7, 2009 12:57 PM

Okay, I get it. No, I am probably going to move to Europe.

Posted by: molly at May 7, 2009 12:58 PM

Anand,

Ashkenazi Jews brought Western standards into a very retarded region. Imagine Byzantine Empire going through the same Western technology boom along with old good Persia and you get population on the same civilization level in "Palestine" and around today. You would speak Greek and Aramaic in that region. Exchanging high tech with Persians. Who is to blame?

That region was for long something like Middle Europe is now. Then devastated by jihad and jizya collecting. Turning higher civilizations (Christian, Jewish, Persian) into despicable dhimmis.

Osmanic Empire extorted high taxes from farmers all over regardless of bad harvest, did not invest in the technology or sciences
and let the nomadic tribes devastate the farmed lands in addition. The Khalifat created lot of deserts this way in Syria and Iraq or elsewhere.

Blame those people first. The Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians became the black people of this region. Those blacks you remember somewhere else.

It would be a sound idea to pay some compensation for all those who had to pay jizya for more than one thousand years. The history repeats itself. The muslims working under "Crusaders" had a better life than muslims living around. The Arab historians say so. And Arabs in the West or Israel have a better life than in an Arab country.

You can find some discrimination in every society, but hardly it can be so hard as in muslim countries. Even Turkey is a horror for non-muslims - non-tourists. And even some muslims like Bangladeshis are treated miserably in ME.
A black guy in Saudi Arabia is called a "slave" - abid. Hindu in Persian means slave and hindoo-zada a person of low birth. Pak means pure and noble. And see how they treat non-muslims in Pakistan. Pure and noble?

The Jews, Greeks, Armenians are non-existent now in Egypt. Israel brought highly educated people in the region and Egypt drove them away, after terrible endless jizya treatment and finaly confiscation of their properties recently. See the results. Egypt might be right now firmly connected to our technology booms.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 7, 2009 1:00 PM

anand,

"I found this interesting article on Molly's blog:"

Yes, it is somewhat interesting but unless there are in-depth analysis as to why I am not prepared to draw conclusions one way or the other.
As to Palestinians, Israelis are not their keepers. Have Palestinians help themselves first. Then talk to Israelis. I am sure they will be happy to help if they'll see Palestinian genuine effort.

And since you've mentioned black Americans just an FYI:
Some time ago Bill Cosby tried to criticize black community for being too involved with their past with themselves and for being too lazy. He got shot up by the likes of Jessy Jackson and Al Sharpton. So you tell me, which one of them was right.

Posted by: leo at May 7, 2009 1:06 PM

anand,

"I had a question here. Many Lebanese insist that their country is occupied and that the Shi'ba farms belong to Lebanon (and not to the Syrian Golan Heights.) Is this true."

Here is what I know.

a. SF used to be Lebanese and then it was annexed by Syria in similar way Russia is trying to annex South Osetia today.
b. Syria lost SF to Israel.
c. In 2000 when Israel withdraw Lebanon recognized that entire territory (I suspect Syrian pressure on Lebanon) is free from occupation even though SF was/is still occupied by Israel.

De jure SF is Syrian.
De facto it is Israeli.
De "drullo" it is Lebanese.

Posted by: leo at May 7, 2009 1:12 PM

Ron, name one fact that I have mentioned that doesn't mesh with my agenda (which is peace and justice).

Peace and justice? So, you actually do want to put HAMAS on trial for the dozens (hundreds?) of suicide bombings it has sponsored? You do want to put Hezbollah on trail for its many acts of mass murder, kidnapping, hijacking, car bombings, etc?

Or were you talking about some other kind of justice? Some other kind of peace?

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 7, 2009 1:43 PM

Molly, from numerous dictionaries:

idiot / Noun
1. a foolish or senseless person

If you choose to feel insulted by the term, feel insulted. It is my opinion of you based upon your comments.

Let me know if you start a fund for your move to Europe so that I can make a donation.

Warmest Regards,

Posted by: Ron Snyder at May 7, 2009 5:27 PM

Craig, Hezbollah and Hamas would never have existed if Zionists had not come into the region in the first place. Get to the root of the problem: the Jewish Supremacist State. Ron, as I said, resorting to insults means you don't know how to win the argument. By the way, I take being called an idiot by a racist as a compliment. :)

or any of the tons of other massacres they committed, like the hundreds of civilians just a few months ago.

Posted by: molly at May 7, 2009 5:59 PM

Craig, Hezbollah and Hamas would never have existed if Zionists had not come into the region in the first place. Get to the root of the problem: the Jewish Supremacist State.

How does that justify atrocities that they commit? How does ANYTHING justify atrocities, molly? A crime is a crime. Moral people don't try to find justifications for criminals to explain away the crimes they have committed. I don't personally care what Arab resistance groups came into existence to fight Israel. There's a war going on, and Arabs have a right to use any legal means at their disposal to fight it. What I care about is criminal acts some (most? all?) of those groups have committed against the innocent. As an American, I am primarily concerned with criminal acts they have committed against Americans.

The incident took place amid heavy fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah during "Operation Grapes of Wrath". A United Nations military investigation later determined it was unlikely that Israeli shelling of the U.N. compound was the result of technical or procedural errors.5

So, according to the United Nations report, the worst that Israel is guilty of there is criminal negligence. If you want to label that a war crime, that's up to you, but the UN does not consider it to be one and I doubt a war crimes tribunal would, either.

Is that really the best you can do, trying to come up with anything comparable to the heinous acts committed by Hezbollah and HAMAS as a matter of routine?

or any of the tons of other massacres they committed, like the hundreds of civilians just a few months ago."

I often think it would've been good to have a trial eventually but then call myself naive fool and quickly wake up. I use Jenin massacre or Qana-2 massacre to sober up.
There is no way impartial review is possible. Look at yourself. You are readily passing judgment without doing minimal investigation. Israel cannot afford to give you another opportunity.

Now, just to help you appreciate reality for what it is. Israel is not fighting Palestinians. It is fighting entire Arabistan (due to lock of better word).
At first it was Pan-Arabism against Zionist entity and it failed. Then it became Pan-Islam war against Israel. When that will fail I do not know what will be next. Palestinians were always used to keep action going. Nobody cares about their plight.
Here is little example of what Israel has to deal with:

"you see...the point is not winning by force here. if you look at the big picture, all we have to do is keep the fight alive...sustain the animosity, hatred, and armed resistance towards the zionists and their illegal state for decades and generations to come. In successfully doing this.. numbers, probability and demographics will take hold. They are a few million in a sea of 350 million hostiles. Think scientifically, think logically, think mathematically, think historically. Peace with israel, however, would be a big impediment. No peace...never."

anand's falsely naive tossing in another rouge fish by bringing in the Shebaa farms is yet another example that he comments here in-bad-faith. Personally, I doubt that he is any of what he represents himself to be: Indian, American, Hindu. He does seem to be a he, though.

It takes almost no effort to determine that the UN certified the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon to be complete. The Shebaa Farms area was considered part of Syria by both Syria and Lebanon when it was captured by Israel in 1967, even if nearby Lebanese citizens (Shebaa Farms was not inhabited by people) owned it by individual title and pastured their sheep there. There is some gray in that there are some inconsistencies in border maps produced by France, Lebanon, Syria (and some inconsistencies among various Lebanese maps or among various French maps) as to the Syrian/Lebanese border in that area (Lebanon was carved out of the French Mandate for Syria in the 1920s).

But that is a very pale shade of gray. The preponderance is that Shebaa Farms was Syrian in 1967. Since then, in order to create a pretext to justify continuing hezbollah violence (okkupayshun! OKKUPAYSHUN!!) , Syria has effectively attempted to give it to Lebanon. Some Lebanese want it. Other Lebanese don't. But at this point in Lebanese politics, few are brave enough to refuse this poisoned gift from Syria and hezbollah. Then again, Syria basically considers all of Lebanon to be part of Syria, so from their perspective, they would be merely giving it to themselves.

But how does this relate to Pashtun/Pukhtun nationalism?

Posted by: del at May 7, 2009 10:23 PM

Ron, Molly is no idiot. Molly, I wouldn't assume that Ron is a racist. Being partially uninformed is not "racist."

Del, could you please provide links for when Kofi Annan and the UN certified that Shi'ba farms was not part of Lebonan? Thanks for your help. Someone on Molly's blog wants proof.

Does anyone here have any evidence that Hezbollah has used torture? How about Khomeini and Khamenei used torture? (Again someone on Molly's blog wants proof.)

Yes none of this relates to Pashtu nationalism. As I said, I am looking for links to provide to someone else.

Posted by: anand at May 7, 2009 10:52 PM

Del, anand is not misrepresenting himself. I've got issues with the way anand tries to sit on the fence all the time, but he is the person he says he is.

Does anyone here have any evidence that Hezbollah has used torture? How about Khomeini and Khamenei used torture? (Again someone on Molly's blog wants proof.)

Anand, are the people on Molly's blog retarded or something? They can't do their own research?

The reason that one is a freebie is because I anticipate your next demand that eyewitness accounts of the torture be produced. They tortured Robert Stetham on the plane right in front of the other passengers, as was testified to in the court case against the man who tortured and murdered him.

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 8, 2009 12:13 AM

"Believe it or not, I care about both populations and want them to each live with peace and justice."

Then why do you make excuses for the religious fanatics and savages of Hamas while continuing to blame only Jews in nearly every one of your posts?

Here's a fact you will never, ever find on molly's blog:

Three of the most significant markers of well-being are life expectancy, literacy rate, and infant mortality rate. Palestinians on both the West Bank and Gaza are significantly better off by these measures than the people of IRAN (as well as many other Mideast states). Yet you continually make excuses for Nutjob and incessantly demonize the Jewish state. Furthermore you tell outrageous lies deliberately crafted to put Israel in a bad light such as "Israel 'forced' Arafat on the Palestinians" and "Palestinians did not take part in the 1948 war against Israel".

I am not taken in by your phony, smarmy rhetoric and will continue to correctly and truthfully identify you as an antisemite whether Michael likes it or not. And molly too, I don't care if her father was a g-ddamn mohel.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 8, 2009 12:21 AM

PS-There is an eyewitness in teh Kazemi case too, in that Zahra Kazemi was healthy and unharmed when arrested, and when the police brought her to the hospital she was was badly abused and fatally injured. According to the doctor who treated her.

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 8, 2009 12:22 AM

"Palestinians on both the West Bank and Gaza are significantly better off by these measures than the people of IRAN (as well as many other Mideast states)." This improves my opinion of Fatah and Hamas. They aren't as bad as I thought. Thanks for the info.

Posted by: anand at May 8, 2009 1:11 AM

"Does anyone here have any evidence that Hezbollah has used torture? How about Khomeini and Khamenei used torture? (Again someone on Molly's blog wants proof.)"

Yes - few millions refugees in the West or somewhere else, who do not dare go home to see their very old mums and dads, who will never see them again. Last week I spoke to one (tortured recently), but I know many of them from 1989 on already. Every Persian in the West is a sad story enjoying our freedom.

That person asking must be an absolute giga-moron. Why do you propagate that blog here?

Posted by: Czechmade at May 8, 2009 2:34 AM

Ahh, Molly, then you are most easy to compliment.

Though you do state a truth; in that you argue, not discuss issues. When we agree with you, the argument ends, and we shall have seen the truth and have been set free.

Now I get it. (us'in racists are a bit slow)

Posted by: Ron Snyder at May 8, 2009 2:49 AM

Yes, Anand, but being a Zionist is being a racist. Zionism means one group is entitled to another's land. Plus, he basically said Arabs couldn't use computers the other day.

Posted by: molly at May 8, 2009 4:27 AM

molly,

"Yes, Anand, but being a Zionist is being a racist."

Actually, Zionism is Jewish nationalist movement to get Jewish home back but if you believe it means being racist then each and every war fought to rid land of occupiers was and is racist.

When it comes to think of it, entire Middle East currently is one big Arab colony. Israel was able to free itself from colonialism and hopefully it is just a beginning.

Posted by: leo at May 8, 2009 5:07 AM

Does zionism believe in the right of Jews to live inside historic Palestine in peace, freedom, dignity and prosperity? Or does it mean that a specific country must always have at least a plurality/majority of registered Jewish voters? I use "zionism" to mean the former.

"Zionism means one group is entitled to another's land." Does zionism really mean eminent domain? I think that most Israelis would be horrified by the arbitrary nature and scale of ongoing Israeli government confiscation of Palestinian private property if they knew about it. Does anyone here support this kind of confiscation? If so, why?

"Plus, he basically said Arabs couldn't use computers the other day." Anyone who states this is extremely stupid. Obviously such a person hasn't been to America and met American Arabs; and is unaware of IT in Jordan, Egypt and Dubai.

For the record Molly seems open minded to me.

Off topic:
Is there a link to a statement from Kofi Annan and the UN certifying that Shi'ba farms is not part of Lebonan and that the Israeli occupation of Lebonan ended in 2000?

Was torture by Khamenei and Khomeini comparable to torture used by the Qajar and Pahlavi Shah dynasties?

Posted by: anand at May 8, 2009 9:21 AM

Anand, how could they not know about the confiscations? Plus, what about the confiscations in 1948? over 700,000 refugees fled and have not been allowed to return to their homes. No matter the reason they left, they have a right to return. No Zionist believes they have that right.

Posted by: molly at May 8, 2009 9:37 AM

Most Israelis don't go to the occupied territories and know little to nothing about the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Take the example of an Israeli working in Haifa who works at Intel or a VC funded start up. This Israeli works very hard and spends what little free time they have at the beach. What is worse, the only Palestinians he/she knows are his/her co workers. They subconsciously "assume" that the upscale educated successful Palestinian Israelis they know are representative of Palestinians more generally.

Few Israelis watch or read the news in detail. News and details regarding Palestinians bore them.

For most Israelis, Palestinians are out of sight, out of mind. This has to change if the Israel as a whole is going to do right by Palestinians.

The question of 1948 is an important one. I think Israel should allow many elderly Palestinians to return to the land of their birth. Israel also needs to provide compensation to all those whose property was confiscated or their heirs.

I believe that in 1947 there were 650,000 Jews and 1.3 million Arabs in Palestine. Did 700,000 Palestinians move in 1948 from Israel proper?

Posted by: anand at May 8, 2009 12:00 PM

Molly;

Which race do Zionists discriminate against? The Israelis and Palestinians are both Causcasians. Or are you just just crying racism at any discrimination against anyone?

Folks;

How about we all lay off this tiresome Palestinian-Israeli conflict for a bit? It's not the worse conflict in the world or the bloodiest or the one with the highest body count or the harshest oppression.

Attention really needs to be paid to the Darfur genocide.

Posted by: Boojum at May 8, 2009 12:09 PM

anand,

"Is there a link to a statement from Kofi Annan and the UN certifying that Shi'ba farms is not part of Lebonan and that the Israeli occupation of Lebonan ended in 2000?"

I do not know nor it matters in any way.
When Lebanese government certifies that Lebanon has no territorial claims against Israel while Israel still occupies SF it means only one thing - Lebanese government does not recognize SF as Lebanese territory.

Posted by: leo at May 8, 2009 12:45 PM

anand,

"Does zionism believe in the right of Jews to live inside historic Palestine in peace, freedom, dignity and prosperity?"

Early Zionists wanted to establish Jewish state anywhere, but they quickly realized that it was only possible to establish Jewish state in it original place.
So, even though it was not initial intent it has become so and I'd have to answer, yes.

(I take offense to "historic Palestine" name. This is made up name, which is loved neither by Jews nor Arabs. This is purely European/Christian term, which in last 40 years is being exploited by Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.)

"Or does it mean that a specific country must always have at least a plurality/majority of registered Jewish voters?"

Unfortunately this is necessary condition in this neck of the woods. Hint: see history of Lebanon Civil War.

Posted by: leo at May 8, 2009 12:58 PM

anand,

"For the record Molly seems open minded to me."

I agree when you say molly is not an idiot.
Neither of us is and insults are uncalled for.

However, molly is anything but open minded.
None of us is, btw.

Posted by: leo at May 8, 2009 1:07 PM

anand,

"Most Israelis don't go to the occupied territories and know little to nothing about the plight of Palestinians in the occupied territories."

Most Israelis will be killed if they will go to the occupied territories.

Posted by: leo at May 8, 2009 1:29 PM

Boojum, discriminating against a religion (or lack of a particular religious affiliation--Judaism, of course) is just as bad as racism. Leo, I don't think that is true about Israelis getting killed if the go the Occupied Territories. What about Amira Hass? Plus, I have Jewish friends who have gone.

Posted by: molly at May 8, 2009 3:57 PM

Boojum, discriminating against a religion (or lack of a particular religious affiliation--Judaism, of course) is just as bad as racism. Leo, I don't think that is true about Israelis getting killed if the go the Occupied Territories. What about Amira Hass? Plus, I have Jewish friends who have gone.

Posted by: molly at May 8, 2009 3:57 PM

"Boojum, discriminating against a religion (or lack of a particular religious affiliation--Judaism, of course) is just as bad as racism."

You are right - islam is as bad as racism. They extort jizya already in Iraq or Pakistan. And the Christians, Hindus, Sikhs pay or run away. Palest. Christians also run away, because of discrimination.

Just say the magic word shariya and you can ask jizya. It is writen in their books.

Where is your outrage?

"Was torture by Khamenei and Khomeini comparable to torture used by the Qajar and Pahlavi Shah dynasties?"

Did you see many refugees prior to Khomeini?
No, you did not. Why to ask? Because you have some agenda, you do not reveal.

Hamas guys discriminate against Fatah and torture them, all discriminate against local Christians, where is your outrage? Normal Pals never dream of free speech. It is virtually unknown. They are slaves to themselves.

Set them free from Fatah, Hamas and imam criminals first.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 8, 2009 9:32 PM

I really don't like discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I will add my thoughts anyway.

Personally, I'm really tired of the line about the difficulties in creating a Jewish democracy...last month I attended an event that featured Assad Abukhalil and the Israeli CG in San Francisco. There's so much effort put into condemning a religious state in Israel, all the while, the US is giving billions of dollars to an "Islamic Republic" in Pakistan...a country that was carved out of India, a partition that caused much more tragedy than anything that happened in Palestine back in 1948.

What about the "Arab States" that aren't only Arab? Like Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria? They have sizable minorities that are non-Arab and yet they get to hold the title of being an "Arab state". Is that a form of racism and extremism?

To: United World 108,
Thank you. You expressed my sentiments well. Egypt is an "Arab" country and yet approx 10% of its inhabitants are Coptic Christians. The Copts were the original indigenous inhabitants of Egypt before the Arab invasion of the seventh century. Today, they remain second-class citizens and are systematically denied basic rights and are discriminated against. Their language is now only used liturgically. As for the Maghreb, much of the indigenous population is Berber and yet their language has been suppressed, and the Berber and Tamazight peoples have been for centuries under the thumb of the dominant Arab culture. And Morocco and Algeria too are regarded as "Arab" states.
Contrary to Molly, my opinion is that the root cause of the Israeli-Arab conflict is that 22 Arab states cannot tolerate one Jewish one. If the Arabs had agreed to the UN Partition Plan of 1947, as the Zionists did, we would likely not even be having this discussion.

You already had a good opinion of Hamas, after all they are dedicated to the murder of Jews which gives you great delight, causing you to "LOL". Yet another example of how anand the liar is such a hypocritical Jew-baiting little Nazi toad. When the data is unfavorable to the Palestinians he blames the Joooos, when it is favorable he credits the savages bent on exterminating the Jews.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 9, 2009 12:45 AM

"I am probably going to move to Europe."

Good riddance. But why Europe, mollly, instead of some anti-Zionist paradise like Syria or Iran? Are you bigoted against Muslims? Or do you just want to dance a little victory jig at Auschwitz?

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 9, 2009 12:55 AM

What is the sourcing that Lebonan acknowledged that the occupation of Lebonan ended in 2000?

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in remarks to the press in Madrid, Spain, on 10 April 2002, said:

"With reference to the disturbances along the Blue Line emanating from Lebanese territory, I call on the Government of Lebanon and all relevant parties to condemn and prevent such violations. The Security Council itself confirmed in June 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from southern Lebanon in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions 425 and 426. Attacks at any point along the Blue Line, including in the Shebaa Farms area in the occupied Golan Heights, are violations of Security Council resolutions. Respect for decisions of the Security Council is the most basic requirement of international legitimacy."

Syria's position seems ambiguous:
From wikipedia:
"On August 15, 2006, however, Syria said it would not object to the deployment in Shebaa of UNIFIL soldiers, but would not allow the Lebanese Army to patrol or set up positions there.

In an interview with Assad reported by SANA on August 24, 2006, Assad flatly refused demarcation of the Syrian/Lebanese border near Shebaa Farms before a withdrawal of Israeli troops."

Shi'ba farms was also included in Syria's 1960 census.

In view of this, why do so many Lebanese angrily insist that their country is occupied and that they have to violently resist the occupation?

Posted by: anand at May 9, 2009 1:24 AM

Gary, some of my relatives died in the Holocaust, you sick bastard. And United world 108 and Harold, I am disgusted by many of the things Arabs and Muslims do as well. Just ask my husband, I am always talking about it. Definitely they discriminate against Copts, Berbers, etc., etc. But in what world does that justify Israel's actions? I bring the latter up here because most people here are ONLY outraged against the former. Moral consistency is the name of the game. By the way, I am not a fan of either Fatah or Hamas.

Posted by: molly at May 9, 2009 6:25 AM

From an Iranian commentor on Iranian.com

"These Islamic thugs would kill me right now if they knew where I was. The recent blogger who was killed in Evin, Omid Mirsayafi, all he wrote in his blog to Khamenei was: "Do you love me as much as you love a Palestinian?" And they killed him for it!!!"

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 6:40 AM

For Anand:

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Sat May 09, 2009 12:02 AM PDT

The Marxists: either imprisoned, tortured, raped, executed, went to exile in Europe, now disillusioned with their former ideology.

The Mojahedin: either imprisoned, tortured, raped, executed, died in armed struggle against the regime, in Ashraf camp in Iraq, disillusioned residing somewhere.

Feminists: arrested shortly thereafter for protesting against compulsory hijab, later on imprisoned, tortured, raped, executed, left for exile in Europe or the U.S. Wondering what the hell were they thinking.

Liberal Democrats: arrested, tortured, executed, assassinated, left for exile in Europe or the U.S.; remain in Iran and resist risking their lives and liberties. Wish they knew then what they know now and would have supported Bakhtiar.

those still alive probably still regard those days as the best days of their lives, exciting, empowing...

...followed by bitter memories of hell on earth...

...and hoping that one day soon they can march again in the streets of Iran and overthrow the fascist fundamentalist regime and celebrate the liberation of Iran. Lets hope this wish comes true and we all can celebrate and dance in a free and democratic Iran.

Fundamentalists: tortured and raped and murdered the Marxists, Mojahedin, feminists, and liberals. Many died in the war. Some are multi-millionaires enjoying life. A few decent ones feel terribly guilty (e.g., Montazeri) for establishing the nightmarish hell they created.

No one is more familiar with the concept of terrorism in the name of Allah and Islam than us the Iranians, who for many years have been the biggest victims of Islamic Terrorism. Iran has been invaded twice by Islamic barbarian invaders.

The Arab terrorists who murdered thousands of people on 9/11, who were still living their old dream of many wives similar to the Arab barbarians who invaded Persia 1400 years ago.with the slogans of allaho Akbar, but delivered only hate, burning,, raping of women (non-believers) and forced marriage in the name of Islam.

The Second Invasion of Islam was by Khomeyni in 1979 which has brought nothing but misery, rape and execution of young girls in prison, the stoning of women, theft and terror.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 7:08 AM

"Yes, the Iranian regime is disgusting."

But we get minimum outrage. Strange. Not so attractive. Why? Why are Pals more interesting?

Because our "Arabs" never accept some historical guilt. Because our "leftists" specialized in one brand of "imperialists" and because our "right wingers" are after all not so serious about freedom and human rights.

And Palestinians accept money and training just like Hisbollah from Iranian mullahs. Freedom means nothing to them. I will never drop one tear for them. Pals accepted money also from bolsheviks - who stole them just like mullahs from their own people. Freedom was never an issue in "Palestine".

Do you remember any Pal demonstration for Iranian freedom in the West - in front of an Iranian embassy? Is it difficult to organize such a little event? No. They do not want that and do not care for Iranians - just like Iraqis under Saddam. They took the money and priviliged status in Iraq. They are quite happy with Iran as it is.
They were quite happy with Saddam as he was. Iraqis remeber that quite well.

Is not "Angry Arab" a Palestinian from Saddams Iraq?

Stop supporting those evil guys.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 7:29 AM

Why do you only get minimum outrage? Because people on here are already outraged about it. But there is hypocrisy on Palestine that I am trying to highlight. On my own blog, I used to post about Iran because people there did not seem as outraged by it as they did by Palestine. But, obviously the Iranians are not suffering anywhere near the way the Palestinians are. So to only focus on on the former and not the latter is well, I guess you can figure it out. Hugely hypocritical. For instance, the Iranians did not just have hundreds of their citizens massacred for...voting the wrong way (as if the bombs only killed those who voted for Hamas anyway). They also don't have their land being seized by the Iranian regime either. But some victims are more righteous than others, right?

Posted by: molly at May 9, 2009 7:49 AM

Why do you only get minimum outrage? Because people on here are already outraged about it. But there is hypocrisy on Palestine that I am trying to highlight. On my own blog, I used to post about Iran because people there did not seem as outraged by it as they did by Palestine. But, obviously the Iranians are not suffering anywhere near the way the Palestinians are. So to only focus on on the former and not the latter is well, I guess you can figure it out. Hugely hypocritical. For instance, the Iranians did not just have hundreds of their citizens massacred for...voting the wrong way (as if the bombs only killed those who voted for Hamas anyway). They also don't have their land being seized by the Iranian regime either. But some victims are more righteous than others, right?

What's funny is that I, who have expressed support for refugees and victims of oppressive regimes, regardless of religion, everywhere get called a hypocrite, yet the others who seem to exclude certain victims, do not.

Posted by: molly at May 9, 2009 8:00 AM

anand,

"In view of this, why do so many Lebanese angrily insist that their country is occupied and that they have to violently resist the occupation?"

Did you really have to ask?

First, it suits Nasrallah. It helps him maintain status of Divine Glorious Resistor.
Second, not every Shia in Southern Lebanon speaks English, has Internet access or dares to question what great Said has got to say.

Posted by: leo at May 9, 2009 8:01 AM

""Yes, the Iranian regime is disgusting."

But we get minimum outrage."

Czechmade, molly is just shucking and jiving. In a previous thread she went out of her way to stick up for Nutjob. She's backpedaling now because it's beginning to dawn in her thick skull what a hypocrite she looks like.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 9, 2009 9:06 AM

"Gary, some of my relatives died in the Holocaust, you sick bastard."

If I believed all the bullshit I read on the Internet, just about every single critic of Israel is a Holocaust survivor.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 9, 2009 9:08 AM

"They also don't have their land being seized by the Iranian regime either."

It seems all the refugees took their lands and houses with them. Mullahs also love to confiscate property from opposition. Their national riches got systematically plundered and transfered to your "victims". It must be a good business in Palestine to organize "victims" that way. To capture charities, to channel money or goods or

sell (!!) it or distribute it in one´s favour. "Victims" are an export article, they collect money all over the world for them. And some dirty guys are in charge of this money and it goes somewhere else. Business as usual.

Why do not you advocate a trial with Hamas and Fatah for abusing their own people? These brain-washed hostages? Ehmm, victims?

Otherwise any sane govt. would stop bombing Sderot to avoid your "massacres". Clearly avoidable. And who will be in charge of rebuilding Gaza? Any doubts? Will it be profitable for certain strange brand of people?
A good business with "victims"? And they officially disdain life. It is in their book. They teach it in their perverse school system. So what "massacres"? Are you insulting islam? Those are honorable transfers to the paradise. Shaheed business. No Last Day Judgment. The best thing that could happen to anyone. A win-win situation.

"But some victims are more righteous than others, right?" Yes, especially those involved in jihad and martyrdom.

They believe that - and you say nothing. They have been mentally massacred. And you do not care at all. Prefabricated zombies. No problem. Say proudly "I sacrifice all my kids", as they do.
"I can make many more". Wonderful philosophy.

Without islam Iranians might have normal democracy. They are smart enough. Can you imagine Palestinians without islam? Why not. Let us tell them - do not be victims of ideology. Then only one can have some results. But you don´t have clearly the courage. You are a complice, not part of any solution. Saying "victims", "massacre" is your alibi. An excuse.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 9:14 AM

Molly is Jewish and lost family in the holocaust. This is part of why she is so insistent that her fellow Jews live up to their ancient values.

PS. Molly has gotten in trouble with many for criticizing civil rights inside Iran. She also got bashed a lot for speaking on behalf of woman in the Arab and muslim world.

Here is an out there thought, might Sayyed Nasrallah, may peace be upon him, and the Iranian government offer Israel an alliance with Hezbollah in return for a Palestinian peace agreement. Hezbollah and Israel share a common enemy in the Takfiri, a common interest in each others economic development and fighting organized crime. The old alliance between Jews and the ancient Persian Emperors (such as Darius) might serve as a model.

Is this a possibility?

Another question: How does Sayyed Nasrallah treat Lebanese Palestinians?

Treat? I do not know but what I know is that great many Lebanese believe they need armed militia of their own to counter Palestinian weapons just in case. Apparently HA is perceived to be such militia.
Why it is necessary in the presence of LAF only Lebanese will be able explain coherently. I cannot. You may try finding an answer in MOU but I could not.

My personal opinion however, Naslallah cannot see himself without being armed. He will invent any reason or will start any war just to prove it to the rest of the Lebanon. That mixed with hatred for anything Israeli and non-Shia what make Lebanon hostage these days.

Posted by: leo at May 9, 2009 11:12 AM

"This is part of why she is so insistent that her fellow Jews live up to their ancient values."
Does she like Finkelstein?

She is above them and mentoring from safe distance?
A rasool? Does she insist that muslims do not live up to their semi-ancient values? Does she allow them to call US or Europe dar-al-harb - the House of war for ex.? Or that would be too much for poor muslims?

"PS. Molly has gotten in trouble with many for criticizing civil rights inside Iran."

Then describe when and where. US or ME? That should be discussed, known to all. Who are those fascists enjoying oppression?

Peace with Hisbollah? Those guys shouting/singing genocidal
"Khaibar, Khaibar" i.e. killing the Jews after Mohammads example? Are you mad? That is the meaning of their life. Like the Yemeni guy´s killing a Jew last year "to get closer to allah".

Clear kiyah - emulation.

Or do you mean Hisbollah is that totalitarian that their headquarters can change the mind of their slaves any given moment?

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 1:37 PM

Robert Fisk: Civilians pay price of war from above

Of course there will be an inquiry. And in the meantime, we shall be told that all the dead Afghan civilians were being used as "human shields" by the Taliban and we shall say that we "deeply regret" innocent lives that were lost. But we shall say that it's all the fault of the terrorists, not our heroic pilots and the US Marine special forces who were target spotting around Bala Baluk and Ganjabad.

And of course, the reason is quite simple. We live, they die. We don't risk our brave lads on the ground – not for civilians. Not for anything. Fire phosphorus shells into Fallujah. Fire tank shells into Najaf. We know we kill the innocent. Israel does exactly the same. It said the same after its allies massacred 1,700 at the refugee camps of Sabra and Chatila in 1982 and in the deaths of more than a thousand civilians in Lebanon in 2006 and after the death of more than a thousand Palestinians in Gaza this year.

And if we kill some gunmen at the same time – "terrorists", of course – then it is the same old "human shield" tactic and ultimately the "terrorists" are to blame. Our military tactics are now fully aligned with Israel.

The reality is that international law forbids armies from shooting wildly in crowded tenements and bombing wildly into villages – even when enemy forces are present – but that went by the board in our 1991 bombing of Iraq and in Bosnia and in Nato's Serbia war and in our 2001 Afghan adventure and in 2003 in Iraq. Let's have that inquiry. And "human shields". And terror, terror, terror. Something else I notice. Innocent or "terrorists", civilians or Taliban, always it is the Muslims who are to blame.

Yes, I like Finkelstein. Is that a problem? No, I don't consider myself "above" anybody. Those are Anand's words, not mine.

Posted by: molly at May 9, 2009 3:30 PM

"Molly is Jewish and lost family in the holocaust."

And your evidence for this is ... ?

"Here is an out there thought, might Sayyed Nasrallah, may peace be upon him, and the Iranian government offer Israel an alliance with Hezbollah"

That is as likely as anand telling the truth, or not "LOL"ing at the thought of innocent Jews being tortured and decapitated.

By the way, anand, are you claiming to be a Hindu? If so, then why the "PBUH"??

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 9, 2009 3:39 PM

Fisk, classic, hilarioous.

Good businessman - he gets payed for writing few moralities aimed at the West, recycling old stuff for the West will never kidnap him, assassinate or blackmail him.

Nice life, good appartment in Beirut, no risk - no research - no facts.

We had hundreds lazy journalists like this in communist times knowing exactly where to aim the critique and laughing about it in private. I doubt this professional coward is able to laugh about his undeserved pension. This is work? No, these are merry holidays.

It takes two coffees to write something like this. Plus the claim he met this and that man of importance.

A brutal exploitation of the reader! Pure capitalist on his own. Leftists - you get cheated again. You are not supposed to think. He says so. Accept it.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 3:47 PM

Molly - who gave you troubles, when you peeped something about Iranians? Is it to undecent to expose them?

Posted by: Czechmade at May 9, 2009 4:38 PM

It was a reader of my blog. Gary, would you like the link to the Yad Vashem archive my father found?

Posted by: molly at May 9, 2009 5:07 PM

It was a reader of my blog. Gary, would you like the link to the Yad Vashem archive my father found?

Posted by: molly at May 9, 2009 5:07 PM

Jinx,

You were making very good case and then you killed it with this:

"The reality is that international law forbids armies from shooting wildly in crowded tenements and bombing wildly into villages – even when enemy forces are present"

Fist, 'wildly' is demagogic statement especially in light of usage of smart weapons. Barring incidents of poor intel and human errors they always reach intended target.
Second, international law does not forbid armies to answer to fire with fire even if enemy chooses to commit fire from within populated areas. Law actually stipulates that it is permitted to respond if fired upon. And in such cases 'use of human shield' charge is totally legitimate.

As to the rest. I agree, inquiry must be made into each and every case.

Posted by: leo at May 9, 2009 5:53 PM

On Molly's blog, many attack her as "orientalist" and anti arab for her remarks on woman's rights and human rights in the middle east. They say that as an American Jew she knows nothing about the subject and betrays subtle anti middle east bigotry in her comments (by assuming western values are superior to middle east values.) Some also say she has no right to speak on such subjects.

As a Hindu, I have every right to say "may peace be upon him" if I want. It is a statement of respect, not of religion, as far as I am concerned. Didn't Jesus say "bless those who curse you?" Loving and respecting thy enemy is an important theme in many great religions (including Christianity, Islam, Buddhist, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Confusism, Jainism.)

Posted by: anand at May 9, 2009 6:07 PM

anand,

"As a Hindu, I have every right to say "may peace be upon him" if I want. It is a statement of respect, not of religion, as far as I am concerned. Didn't Jesus say "bless those who curse you?" Loving and respecting thy enemy is an important theme in many great religions (including Christianity, Islam, Buddhist, Taoism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Confusism, Jainism.)"

Wo-o-ow. Excellent twist.

anand, I already told you it does not matter to me who you are and what ever you wish to say about yourself I accept. So, my reply is not designed to question your identity.
But seriously, don't Hindus have their own expression equivalent to PBUH? Say anything you want of cause, but you must agree, it is rather strange.

Posted by: leo at May 9, 2009 6:24 PM

I remember Anand saying on Iraqi Mojo´s blog he was Indian muslim. OK Indian muslims are often jokes in the eyes of other pakka muslims. They make strange things in their Indian mosques.

As a Hindu he would say "shubham astu sarvajagataam". A nice blessing for all beings.

"as American Jew she knows nothing about the subject and betrays subtle anti middle east bigotry in her comments"

Completely predictable. I could write those comments for them - using a little ME chip.
She is in epicentre of being absolutely "wrong" by definition: American, Jewish, woman. That makes her feel, she has some message. Good news for all.

She has to deliver absolute aknowledgement, repect
and understanding. Feeling guilty and begging humbly for little attention. In the process she will lose all her dignity.

Do not expect nicks like "Humble Arab", only "Angry Arabs". What about "Ridiculous Arab"?
That would be a progress. A light at the end of their tunnel.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 10, 2009 1:06 AM

Czechmade, I don't feel guilty for anything (politically, that is) and I have never begged for forgiveness. You have the wrong idea about me.

Posted by: molly at May 10, 2009 9:00 AM

Czechmade, I am Hindu.

Posted by: anand at May 10, 2009 9:05 AM

Do not expect nicks like "Humble Arab", only "Angry Arabs". What about "Ridiculous Arab"?

What ethnic group would not be angry about Western invasion of their lands, support of dictators (Mubarak, Qadafi, Abdullah, the Saudis, etc)? Gee, I wonder how Americans would react if the shoe was on the other foot. I suppose they would be grateful and humble, as you wish Arabs to be.

Posted by: molly at May 10, 2009 10:47 AM

Anyway, Anand says PBUH because he is showing respect for others' religion and promote brotherhood. Not that hard to understand. I wouldn't do it myself, being an atheist, but to each his own.

Posted by: molly at May 10, 2009 10:52 AM

molly,

"What ethnic group would not be angry about Western invasion of their lands, support of dictators (Mubarak, Qadafi, Abdullah, the Saudis, etc)? Gee, I wonder how Americans would react if the shoe was on the other foot. I suppose they would be grateful and humble, as you wish Arabs to be."

I some time think you are throwing things just to see where it will splatter.

I do not care what your average Arab is angry with or at. If they do not like what they have they can change it at any time. If Sunnis, for example, rather have MB leading them is fine with me. I personally am not ready to feel guilty just because some Arabs may suffer from inferiority complex. They have everything needed and more to build great societies, not many choose to do so.
Majority prefer to dwell on their self-inflicted nakba, blame others and do nothing to improve their lives. So, please, spare me.

"Anyway, Anand says PBUH because he is showing respect for others' religion and promote brotherhood. Not that hard to understand. I wouldn't do it myself, being an atheist, but to each his own."

Generic statement everybody will subscribe to, no doubt. However, it does not address subject of discussion.
BTW, why can't atheist say "PBUH"?

Posted by: leo at May 10, 2009 11:43 AM

Anand,

I remember I was surprized you use purely Hindu name. But I do not insist.

Molly,

I do not say what you feel, I say what is expected routinely from us all - from the Pope (right now expected to apologize in Jordan for an old quote uttered years ago within academia).

Those lands were ruined long before the Western involvement. With exception of Lebanon, parts of Iraq and Iran there is only worse scenario for those countries in waiting.
It is really shortsighted and irresponsible to think one can remove some dictator like a rotten tooth and have free people. Most groups have their own imperialistic and militaristic (clothed in religion) agendas. Even Turkey slides to hell easily without West or dictator.

Why to be West-centric and self-centric?

I do not wish anybody to be humble or grateful towards me or West, but from an Arab it would be a superhuman joke. And being humble is a quality for people with intention to think. Being humble seems to be haram in Arab culture. It suggests equality. Unthinkable in a culture where women are treated like slaves. It is written in their books. If you bargain for women´s rights you attack quran and arabness as well. They have to invent excuses mentioned above. You ask them to stop thinking in imperialist way. Their family is an Empire. The father may kill his kids or wives without compensation acc. to sharia.

"showing respect for others' religion and promote brotherhood" is strictly haram in islam. Polytheists should be exterminated, ahl-al-kitab subjugated, Jews are accursed by allah:

"A new fatwa published in Egypt determines that the source of all the existing pigs in the world is Jews, who were cursed by Allah. The new edict was issued by Sheikh Ali Osman from the Egyptian Waqf ministry."

Feel the love and brotherhood. Feel free to blame them, they blame us all the time.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 10, 2009 11:59 AM

"Gary, would you like the link to the Yad Vashem archive my father found?"

I can find Holocaust links on my own without going to your blog. I'm such a computer wizard I can even comment here without double posting.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 10, 2009 12:32 PM

"I remember Anand saying on Iraqi Mojo´s blog he was Indian muslim."

"Czechmade, I am Hindu."

Whatever it takes.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 10, 2009 12:36 PM

"But, obviously the Iranians are not suffering anywhere near the way the Palestinians are."

I pointed out earlier that this is false.

"the Iranians did not just have hundreds of their citizens massacred for...voting the wrong way"

Palestinans weren't killed for voting the wrong way. If that were true (unlike almost everything else you write, molly) Israel could have nuked Gaza right after Hamas was elected. They were killed because the savages of Hamas chose to use them as human shields for their own attacks on Israeli civilians.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 10, 2009 12:48 PM

"How about we all lay off this tiresome Palestinian-Israeli conflict for a bit? It's not the worse conflict in the world or the bloodiest or the one with the highest body count or the harshest oppression."

And pass up a chance to blame everything on the Joooos? You missed the memo, it's been out for 4000 years.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 10, 2009 12:49 PM

"Loving and respecting thy enemy is an important theme in many great religions (including ... Islam"

Then explain the part of the Hamas covenant calling for the murder of Jews, in which they quote Islamic scripture.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 10, 2009 12:58 PM

Czechmade, we have discussed the Hindu scriptures before. One of the most popular prayers among Hindus is:

"Loka Samastha, Sukhino Bhavantu" (May all the beings in all the worlds be happy and successful)

This is one of the most important prayers of Hindus, Budhists, Jains, Sikhs, Taoists. I would expect that this sentiment is shared by Zarastrians, and the Abrahamic faiths (Christians, Jews and Muslims.)

Czechmade, as I told you the concept of "exclusivity of faith" is an Abrahamic one. None of the eastern religions have the concept. Someone can be a Hindu/Budhist/Jain/Sikhs/Taoists/Confucius/Shintoist simultaneously without contradiction.

I have no problems saying the prayers of the Abrahamic faiths.

Posted by: anand at May 10, 2009 1:53 PM

"Then explain the part of the Hamas covenant calling for the murder of Jews, in which they quote Islamic scripture." Quotes please.

"And pass up a chance to blame everything on the Joooos? You missed the memo, it's been out for 4000 years." Israel isn't synonymous with Jews. Most Jews don't live inside Israel. Where have I blamed everything on Israel?

What have I accused Israel of doing, except with respect to the Palestinians? The only other critique is the kind of bombing Israel engaged in in urbane Beirut in 2006. It greatly exceeded any bombing the US air force has conducted in Iraq or Afghanistan. I thought it was inappropriate. I also thought it harmed America since PM Maliki and his Dawa party (and the Najaf Marjeya, including Sayyed Sistani) were such close long time friends of Sayyed Nasrallah. Out of respect for American interests (which Israel has declared it cares about), Israel should have been more careful to avoid civilian casualties at the cost of more IDF dead.

This said, since Hezbollah attacked Israel, Israel was within its rights to attack Hezbollah positions in South Lebonan with ground troops.

BTW, I think that Israel does many amazingly positive things too. None of them, however, justify widespread and ongoing Palestinian private property confiscation paying below market rates or no price at all. Israel also has to allow the Palestinians to apply "Palestinian rule of law" in the areas that belong to Palestinians. Any Israelis (settlers) who live in Palestine should be subject to Palestinian rule of law. The IDF and settlers also need to treat their Palestinian brothers and sisters more respectfully inside the occupied territories.

Posted by: anand at May 10, 2009 2:22 PM

"Even Turkey slides to hell easily without West or dictator." I don't agree. Turks seem western to me.

Without a doubt, extreme militant islamists (not islamics or muslims but those who seek to force a form of Shariah holy law across the ummah or the world) are a major problem. They represent the most dangerous form of imperialism and militarism within our species right now. However, they are a small proportion of muslims.

Most muslims in Indonesia (220 million), India (165 million), Malaysia, Turkey, Kurdistan, Uzbekistan, and Albania strongly oppose these extreme militant islamists. The good news is that traditional practicing muslims are winning this global fight right now. The bad news is that the extreme militant islamists are not defeated yet.

If Israel treats its Palestinian siblings better, it will help win the global war on terror.

Posted by: anand at May 10, 2009 2:34 PM

"The good news is that traditional practicing muslims are winning this global fight right now"

How? Do they avoid imams and their own holy scriptures?
Are they suddenly Hindus, independent of priests just serving the idols in front of them? Is the main story of warlord mohammad completely dissolved in contemplation? Cancelled? No more obligation to fight disbelief? Strange guys. Probably takfiris...

The Turks used to be somewhat westernized. But the rural Turks definitely not. Now they take over the cities in Turkey or Germany with their large families. The rigid Turkish secularism has nothing special to offer to those who do not feel to be part of the old Kemalistic elite.

Even the Turks in Germany supported Saddam. I remember that quite well. 1991.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 10, 2009 4:35 PM

Gary, I meant to indicate the link to the Yad Vashem archive where my particular relatives died. One of them was just a little girl. And I just press post when I post, perhaps there is something wrong with my computer. It must make you feel very superior to keep mentioning it, however. Others here don't.

Posted by: molly at May 10, 2009 6:15 PM

Gary, I meant to indicate the link to the Yad Vashem archive where my particular relatives died. One of them was just a little girl. And I just press post when I post, perhaps there is something wrong with my computer. It must make you feel very superior to keep mentioning it, however. Others here don't.

Posted by: molly at May 10, 2009 6:15 PM

""Then explain the part of the Hamas covenant calling for the murder of Jews, in which they quote Islamic scripture." Quotes please."

No problem, here ya go:

(beginning of quote from Hamas covenant)
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
(end of quote from Hamas covenant)

Hmm, I guess that means they deserve to get their land stolen after all.

Posted by: molly at May 11, 2009 5:00 AM

Where in the Koran is this quote?:

""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

Could the prophet Mohammed be prophesying a war between Jews and Muslims in the distant future with this statement without endorsing the war? This is my interpretation of the quote.

What other statements exist in the Hamas Charter?

PS. I strongly disagree with some parts of the Hamas charter and think they should be amended ASAP. I think that engagement with Hamas might be one way to bring this about.

Posted by: anand at May 11, 2009 11:17 AM

anand,

Is it usual or unusual for a Hindu to use "inshallah" when discussing something they approve of?

Until your comment of 4/26/09 1:35 pm on the "Ahmadinejad Stinks Up Geneva" thread. I had never previously seen it.

Posted by: del at May 11, 2009 11:21 AM

A famous quote, Gary.

Gharkad tree is a miserable bush. Those folks are obsessed with humiliating others. In their One Man mythology the Jews do not deserve even a decent tree to protect themselves for a while.

Why so many have no strength or integrity to say enough is enough?

Their religion is Alfred Hitchcock´s movies taken as instruction, even way to perfection.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 11, 2009 11:23 AM

Gary, I took a little innocent revenge right now...

I asked in the local Prague pub a local Australian-gone-muslim and his Egyptian "I am a muslim" wife about gharkad tree...they did not know.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 11, 2009 12:27 PM

Inshallah = God willing. Allah = God.

It is common for Hindus to use this phrase when talking to Muslims. I don't see Inshallah as a "muslim phrase." It is common for US GIs to use the phrase Inshallah while talking to Iraqis or Afghans.

What is offensive about saying the word "God"?

Posted by: anand at May 11, 2009 12:29 PM

I also thought it harmed America since PM Maliki and his Dawa party (and the Najaf Marjeya, including Sayyed Sistani) were such close long time friends of Sayyed Nasrallah.

If the leadership of the GoI is "close friends" with the leader of one of the world's worst terrorist groups, anand, then the US should withdraw tomorrow and re-invade. Maybe we'll get it right, next time.

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 11, 2009 12:40 PM

Innocent revenge? What do you mean by that? And yeah, a lot of these phrases Muslims never even heard of. Just like most Christians (even ones who go to church) do not know or follow every last line in the bible. That's the problem with trying to prove Muslims are bad with these quotes.

Posted by: molly at May 11, 2009 5:29 PM

Most Christians won't hesitate to renounce a hateful interpretation of scripture too, molly. I've been waiting a long time to see Muslims do the same. So far, I've come up empty. How about you?

And why do you spend so much time talking about other people's hypocrisy and double standards, molly? Haven't your own issues with hypocrisy and double standards been thrown in your face enough, yet? Are you really that far out there that you think you've actually got some moral high ground to stand on? Or have you just become so accustomed to assuming YOUR position is the morally correct one, that it is impossible for you to consider the possibility that you stand shoulder to shoulder with cretins of the worst possible sort? You want to associate with criminals and talk about justice? Is that supposed to be funny? You may claim that you only stand up for innocent and law abiding Palestinians, but that's not the type of person I see you hanging out with. Do you even know any innocent and law abiding Palestinians?

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 11, 2009 10:20 PM

Killing Jews is not some last line in islam, it is the first line. It reverberates in every mosque like sound of a locomotive in a railway station.

Just quote Khaibar or gharkad tree and you have it in its whole ugliness. Just the story of Khaibar is a perfect basis for the next Holocaust. There are many more. Shall we fight it or look away?

Maybe I am wrong defending your own people?

The Hindus (mushrikun) are even in a worse position. Should they be sacrificed to the alleged ignorance of muslims about their own "religion"? Should we leave them with an alibi "oh, I did not know"?

They signed the contract, are they not responsible for what is stated in it? If it´s not their problem, then it will be our problem. And we have no means to solve it. I mean non-violent means.

They teach little kids to kill Jews. Even in the West. Speaking of the Jews, the imams advice the muslim kids to find some chicks and kill them. Training. "Jew" is a common insult among muslim kids in Western schools.
See the evil in making. Digest it.

They prepare the ground and your advice is "tell them they are good and their faith is good". You are both enablers.

Posted by: Czechmade at May 11, 2009 10:29 PM

"Where in the Koran is this quote?:"

I didn't say it was from the Koran because I don't know whether it is from the Koran or not. Unlike you, anand, I don't make shit up just to support my argument. What it is, is Hamas quoting Mohammed as a justification for killing Jews. You just can't deal with the truth, can you?

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 12, 2009 12:07 AM

Anand, that is an infamous hadith that HAMAS references in its charter. I can't believe you didn't know that, or that you weren't able to find out about it with google.

Which explains how Muslims have put pressure on USC (which maintains a translation of Islamic texts that I myself rely on) to remove this Hadith from its database:

The MSA of the University of Southern California became a focal point of this effort because it hosts a major online hadith collection here, which of course included the genocidal hadith. When this was brought to the attention of USA Provost, C. L. Max Nikias, he declared that "the passage cited is truly despicable...The passage in the Hadith that you brought to our attention violates the USC Principles of Community, and it has no place on a USC website." Said Nikias: "I have ordered that the passage be removed." You can see a pdf of his letter here.

It is so despicable that it is not permitted to be published on an American University's Islamic scripture website. According to USC.

This is the text (and reference number) of the Hadith you are asking about (that is missing from USC):

Muslim Book 041, Number 6985: Mohammed: The last hour will not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Muslims would kill them, until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree. The stone or a tree would say: Muslim, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording.

Do you want somebody to find the "monkeys and pigs" one too? :o

Posted by: programmmer_craig at May 12, 2009 1:06 AM

Craig, have you seen all the horror in the OT/Torah? Have you asked any Jews to renounce that? Some of them are actually trying to enact some of it. You know, Muslims pick and choose what to believe in, just like all religious people.

Posted by: molly at May 13, 2009 6:17 PM

Do you have every verse in the Bible memorized? Neither do Muslims have everything in the Quran memorized, much less the Hadith, which is of less importance.

Posted by: molly at May 14, 2009 6:54 AM

Jews and Christians do not run around martyrazing themselves in the name of god regardless of what's written. Muslims do.

Posted by: leo at May 14, 2009 7:43 AM

Leo, not all muslims. Most don't. Only a small minority of Takfiri Salafi violent extremists do.

There are also some Shia extremists, although they represent a much smaller threat.

The good news is that most muslims are resisting the crazies. No one has fought the nutbags or hurt the nutbags as much as their fellow muslims. We (the world's 5 billion non muslims) need to facilitate good decent traditional muslims defeating these extremists.

Posted by: anand at May 14, 2009 10:59 AM

Many soldiers in the Iraq war thought they were fighting a holy war. Not to mention the president. Also, Israel is going about its business exterminating Canaanites from the land, just like it says in the Bible.

Posted by: molly at May 14, 2009 12:42 PM

Many soldiers in the Iraq war thought they were fighting a holy war. Not to mention the president. Also, Israel is going about its business exterminating Canaanites from the land, just like it says in the Bible.

Posted by: molly at May 14, 2009 12:42 PM

anand,

"Leo, not all muslims. Most don't. Only a small minority of Takfiri Salafi violent extremists do."

I know that not all are crazies but it does not contradict with my statement below still:

"Jews and Christians do not run around martyrazing themselves in the name of god regardless of what's written. Muslims do."

Besides, my reply was to molly's attempt to fit Jews and Christians in to mold of those crazies, whatever you call them.

"Leo, not all muslims. Most don't. Only a small minority of Takfiri Salafi violent extremists do."

To add, I do not know nor care how small this small minority really is. I know that they get support of silent majority and I do not need to know anything else.

"The good news is that most muslims are resisting the crazies. No one has fought the nutbags or hurt the nutbags as much as their fellow muslims. We (the world's 5 billion non muslims) need to facilitate good decent traditional muslims defeating these extremists."

Not to dismiss it completely but I do not feel I owe anything to Muslims. Besides, those nutbags, as you call them, will do much better job of facilitating good decent than you, I and the rest of us put together.

Posted by: leo at May 14, 2009 3:37 PM

molly,

"Many soldiers in the Iraq war thought they were fighting a holy war. Not to mention the president. Also, Israel is going about its business exterminating Canaanites from the land, just like it says in the Bible."

I'll be brief.

?

Posted by: leo at May 14, 2009 3:41 PM

Molly: Many soldiers in the Iraq war thought they were fighting a holy war.

Three or four morons, perhaps.

If you're trying to draw some kind of equivalence between the United States Army and a jihadist terrorist army, you are, quite frankly, an idiot. A political, historical, and moral idiot.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at May 14, 2009 4:22 PM

"If you're trying to draw some kind of equivalence between the United States Army and a jihadist terrorist army" I don't think Molly is doing that. I am pretty sure that she wants the elected GoI (Gov of Iraq) and the ISF loyal to it to defeat the resistance--Baathists and the Takfiri. Molly seems to favor a faster transition of all security to the ISF from the MNF-I than the current plan (similar to how Ron Paul feels.) But she doesn't root for the bad guys.

She opposes Al Qaeda linked networks in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

She frequently posts about AQ linked terrorist attacks on her blog. She is quite concerned about the Taliban advance in Pakistan.

Molly, I haven't heard about many GIs who think they are fighting a holy war. I think that allegation is Arab propaganda. Some might believe they are fighting to help Iraqis resist the Takfiri extremists. However, I wouldn't call that a "holy war."

Perhaps you are referring to language that describe the war on terror as a war between good and evil? Many atheist Arabs (who hate religion thanks to their exposure to religious extremists) see this language as very offensive.

The situation with Israel is different.

Most Israelis would roll their eyes at the ideas that they are fighting a holy war. However many settlers (thought not all) in the occupied territories . . . God bless them . . . are nuts. I have seen many videos of them behaving crazy. Some of them really think this is some Torah inspired divinely ordained conflict. I didn't want to believe it for a long time, because these settler crazies were so unlike the many Jews that I grew up with in America, or even the Israeli Americans I have met. But even Israeli Americans say that many of the settlers are nuts. I am inclined to believe them.

Leo, muslims are resisting the extremists. About four fifths of all casualties in Afghanistan (ANSF + ISAF) are ANSF. The ratio in Iraq ISF/(ISF+MNF-I) is similar. Muslims in Indonesia and India publicly repudiate AQ linked networks. If it weren't for the American muslim community, there would be a wave of terrorist attacks on America. India (with its 165 million muslims) would also suffer many more terrorist attacks if what you said were true. So would Nigeria, Canada, Europe, Australia, Indonesia's nonmuslim minorities, Malaysia, and other countries.

I "AM GRATEFUL" to the silent muslim majority.

Posted by: anand at May 14, 2009 11:31 PM

"The good news is that most muslims are resisting the crazies. No one has fought the nutbags or hurt the nutbags as much as their fellow muslims."

And your evidence for this is ...? Probably as strong as your evidence that "Israel forced Arafat on the Palestinians".

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 15, 2009 12:03 AM

" Israel is going about its business exterminating Canaanites from the land, just like it says in the Bible."

" Israel is going about its business exterminating Canaanites from the land, just like it says in the Bible."

molly, let me put this as kindly and gently as I can. You are a filthy evil lying Nazi bitch.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 15, 2009 12:05 AM

anand,

"But even Israeli Americans say that many of the settlers are nuts."

Yes, I understand and I somewhat share you sentiment. But point is how each society deals with their extremists. Compare reaction of Israeli society to actions of Baruch Goldstein or how it deals with its extremist political parties with identical events in each and every Muslim society including most liberal of them.
Besides, Muslims do not do it for our benefit. There is no genuine regret. There is fear that nuts will run out of infidel targets and will turn their attention to more moderate Muslim brothers. You know the rule, "Muslim can kill an infidel for being an infidel and kill another Muslim for being bad Muslim".
Bottom line, unless there is genuine disgust and active resistance in Muslim society instead of fear and quiet (and not so quiet) admiration everything will begin again and again and again ...

Posted by: leo at May 15, 2009 5:20 AM

Gary,

Please, cool it.

Posted by: leo at May 15, 2009 5:22 AM

"filthy evil lying Nazi bitch." Is this preschool?

Posted by: anand at May 15, 2009 6:09 AM

Michale, you banned people for much less than what Gary said, if I recall.

Posted by: molly at May 15, 2009 6:26 AM

Damn, Anand, what kind of preschool did you go to?

Posted by: molly at May 15, 2009 1:17 PM

No, Michael, I did not compare the US army with Al Qaeda. What I said was a response to this comment:

Jews and Christians do not run around martyrazing themselves in the name of god regardless of what's written. Muslims do.

I responded as you read, that both our president and members of our army (not to mention large segments of the American public) believed they were at war because God told them to. So, if one is to go up to Muslims and ask them to renounce this or that verse in the Quran, shouldn't one also do that to Christians or Jews? All sides here have their radicals.

By the way, Leo, the word is martyring.

Posted by: molly at May 15, 2009 1:26 PM

Molly,

"I responded as you read, that both our president and members of our army (not to mention large segments of the American public) believed they were at war because God told them to. So, if one is to go up to Muslims and ask them to renounce this or that verse in the Quran, shouldn't one also do that to Christians or Jews? All sides here have their radicals."

I think you do not understand the full meaning of your claim.
If it were true Iraq would've been either totally Christian (which brand of Christianity, btw?) or totally empty by now.

"By the way, Leo, the word is martyring."

Both words are made up words but thanks anyway.

Posted by: leo at May 16, 2009 12:37 PM

"Is this preschool?"

OK, anand, what is your reaction to molly's barefaced accusation that Israel is committing Nazi-style genocide on the Palestinians?

Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 16, 2009 1:53 PM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo

Comments:

Recommended Reading

I'm a reader-funded foreign correspondent and foreign policy analyst who has reported from the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus.